Quote:"In this country, the state lacks the authority to ban protected speech on the ground that it affects the listener's or observer's thoughts and attitudes,"
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/fun.games/1...index.html
The Illinois law instituting fines for stores that sell a vaguely-worded statement about 'games with violent or sexual content' or something was called unconstitutional, just like all the others have been... this is fine in countries like Austrailia or New Zealand or Germany, where the national government can ban a game completely from sale in their country if they feel that it's too violent or something (which reqularly happens... I remember hearing recently that Austrailia had rejected the 50 Cent: Bulletproof game (50 Cent says, 'Buy it for your kids! It'll teach them real life lessons!' ... yeah, I can't defend it at all. It's just wrong to ban things just because they send bad messages... or at least, it is in this country... I mean, in Brazil it's illegal to make a website advocating hate speech of some kinds, or have a neonazi meeting open to the public, but not here... not until the group gets stupid and moves from words to actions that is, or refuses to pay their taxes or something. :)), and GTA: San Andreas I think... I believe previous GTA games had to be modified or something? Not sure...)... anyway, I don't think that any of the regulate-videogames bills on the books now are constitutional. Perhaps a constitutional one could be made, but it seems like other efforts would be much more worth the time...
Good job.
And, I read your post front to back three times and for the life of me, I can't tell whether you agree with this ruling or not. That was a hell of a ramble.
The ruling is good because the law was so absurdly broad... and the law is stupid -- it targets just videogames. So movies and music aren't just as bad? Oh right, the generation who most of our politicians come from are used to movies and music, so they aren't as targetted... they certainly are some, but not as much and not as seriously. Double standards...
I was also saying 'isn't it nice that we live in a country more devoted to freedom of expression, in some ways, than European countries'... they have other advantages over the US, but in this field, we're clearly ahead. It may not seem that way when it results in allowing neo-nazis to sell music CDs, but it does when it means violent videogames aren't banned just because they are violent...
I'm not completely opposed to forcing age checks, though, if that's what it takes... there definitely are games that children shouldn't be playing, after all. The question is just finding the best way to keep such games away from people who shouldn't be playing them...
The obvious solution is for parents to not be fucking idiots and actually look at the items little Johnny wants on his Christmas list.
But, Ryan, it was violent videogames that made little Johnny into a homicidal maniac!
Welty, perhaps ABF was just stating the facts without a trace of his actual opinion on purpose? I know I go about that myself many times.
Aren't the facts enough?
And yeah, a KKK rally organized "peacably" in the middle of the town square is absolutely disgusting. However, even the opinions of the flat out WRONG have to be protected, to prevent someone who's opinions are flat out wrong from banning speech stating something that's right. Fortunatly, those hate messages propogate extremely slowly, much more slowly than the propogation of the message of tolerance. When such displays occur, generally the majority will gather around and tell them exactly what they think of their display. The hate group may try to instigate something, but as long as things go peacefully, they end up having to go home eventually having accomplished nothing, and maybe, just maybe, one of those idiots will think about it and possibly rid their minds of such stupid notions. I myself know that it is at least possible for a fundy to change their way of thinking should they allow logic and reason to take its course.
Quote:And yeah, a KKK rally organized "peacably" in the middle of the town square is absolutely disgusting. However, even the opinions of the flat out WRONG have to be protected, to prevent someone who's opinions are flat out wrong from banning speech stating something that's right. Fortunatly, those hate messages propogate extremely slowly, much more slowly than the propogation of the message of tolerance. When such displays occur, generally the majority will gather around and tell them exactly what they think of their display. The hate group may try to instigate something, but as long as things go peacefully, they end up having to go home eventually having accomplished nothing, and maybe, just maybe, one of those idiots will think about it and possibly rid their minds of such stupid notions. I myself know that it is at least possible for a fundy to change their way of thinking should they allow logic and reason to take its course.
I was making the point that in many countries hate groups and speech isn't legal, but it is here because we have a stronger tradition of constitutional protection of speech... it might seem good to ban hate groups, but once you do that... well, lots of countries that ban hate groups regulate the media too. :)
Quote:The obvious solution is for parents to not be fucking idiots and actually look at the items little Johnny wants on his Christmas list.
But Conker's Bad Fur Day is a children's game, right? Remember, "M means mild"!
AO is for 'Available Online'
But I always buy E rated games, E is for Entertainment.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:Welty, perhaps ABF was just stating the facts without a trace of his actual opinion on purpose? I know I go about that myself many times.
Aren't the facts enough?
Well, sure. However, the impression I got was that he was trying his best to put forth an opinion, but was unable to in the end.
I think my second post clarified what I meant... but it kind of was a post about one thing in which I inserted some comments about a related, but different, one in the middle of. :)
A Black Falcon Wrote:I think my second post clarified what I meant... but it kind of was a post about one thing in which I inserted some comments about a related, but different, one in the middle of. :)
Dude! You just rambled on in a post in order to clearify the fact that you didn't ramble on in the last post at the same time siting examples where you did.
That was truly a post worthy of lazy.. :)
:crap: Ow god my brain acks@!
I got my points across just fine.
And those were quite far from long posts...