Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for HumanTarget

Real Name HumanTarget   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Dec 21, 2010, 18:18
Total Comments 4 (Suspect)
User ID 56085
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


News Comments > Out of the Blue
1. Re: Out of the Blue Mar 28, 2012, 11:57 HumanTarget
 
I don't recall you ever mentioning the make/model before but you could always solicit recommendations of what to check. :-)

Does it crank at least?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
10. Re: Op Ed Dec 21, 2010, 16:30 HumanTarget
 
Last reply, as I believe we're talking past each other at this point.

You cannot compare law's structure without considering the basis of whether said law is constitutional. Limits on alcohol possession/consumption would be a comparable if games had been construed as having a deleterious affect on minor development.

In regards to alcohol, this is a role the citizens (both individual & corporate) have abdicated (not meant to be derogatory) to the state for enforcement which is what gives us our various liquor laws throughout the lands (limits on availability for sale/purchase, limits on possession, limits on consumption...)

Alcohol boils down to a public health issue.

Regarding the "consumption of media" (to follow as closely as possible to alcohol) however, there has not been any abdication of enforcement by the citizens and attempts to position a group of citizens towards any abdication have been derided and/or seen as ineffective (Comics Code Authority, MPAA...) This is primarily due to concerns of first amendment abridgment at the hands of the state.

And I'd challenge you to find a lawful statue that abridges a citizens first amendment that specifically targets a minor. Schools & school boards have been given wide discretion (case law) when it comes to "school & student safety" and though there are limits on free speech in schools, students (and hence minors) do not forfeit their first amendment rights when they walk through the door. There are merely limitations on such rights.

Keep in mind what we're talking about here are two parties' rights: the consumer (minor/adult/citizen) & the purveyor (retailer/distributor/creator/citizen). Abridging the consumer's right with undue restrictions of consumption isn't legal. Neither is abridging the purveyor's rights with undue restrictions of sale/distribution/creation.

I'm trying to find an analogous scenario and consumption of pornography is about the only one that really fits well but it even has issues (mainly with what is construed as "pornography" - as it is in they eye of the beholder). But isn't that nearly an exact situation as to what we're debating here?

What you (not calling you out specifically) would construe as violent I may not. Similarly what could be construed as pornographic might be different between us as well.

So how do you legislate that?

The question is couched to include the vagaries of burdens on retailers (ensuring 100% compliance with any potential law else face punishment for violations), impacts on first amendment grounds (both consumer & purveyor), and the shielding of minors from harmful materials (public health concerns).

A majority of municipalities already have laws on the books regarding "pandering obscenity". (Check the here [url=]http://cbldf.org/[/url]for those...) The problem is those laws require a high burden of proof to be applicable and video games currently are not considered adequate to warrant enforcement using those methods. Couple this with a combination of unwilling attorneys general (not even attempting to use existing law) & legislators needing to "do something" to gain political capital ("Protect the Children (r)") and you have Sen. Yee attempting to bolster a fail(ing) law.

Which, if SCOTUS follows precedent, will be struck down as unconstitutional.

HT
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
7. Re: Op Ed Dec 21, 2010, 14:12 HumanTarget
 
ViRGE wrote on Dec 21, 2010, 13:45:
As far as I know none of Yee's proposed bills have required games be removed from the shelves. They're basically equivalent to most states' liquor control laws, which prohibit sales to minors and require stores to card purchasers who may be underage. Blue Laws aside, this doesn't stop me from getting beer, nor would I expect it to stop me from getting a copy of Halo.

False analogy - if you are under 21 years of age, you are not allowed to either purchase or possess alcohol due to repeated scientific studies surrounding adolescent consumption of alcohol being detrimental to child development. That makes alcohol a public health issue and not a moral* one.

Nowhere (yet) has there been repeatable and peer reviewed studies of the impact of violent video games on children's development.

Now, if Yee and any of his supporters really wanted to get into regulating video games and their sales, then they would need to address it at a commerce clause level within the federal jurisdiction.

But even at that level you quickly run into issues surrounding first amendment violations in determining what should be designated M/AO or otherwise.

Regarding my assertion towards "preemptive removal" from market: if a company is unable to achieve the sales levels they require for a return on their investment in certain regions/areas, they will not distribute such materials to those areas.

Look at what happened with some of the "questionable" games that were planned for release in Australia. After being flagged as "M/AO" the game was either banned from distribution there, the distributor decided to not sell in AUS, or sales were severely limited (no ROI).

Businesses are still in existence to make money...

HT

* My interpretation: the distinction on what is/is not violent and/or inappropriate for children is entirely up to the parent and any attempt to establish otherwise a morals-based justification.

"I don't like my child to see or ask me about boobies, so I don't want Cosmopolitan magazine on sale at the grocery store."

This is a morals-based justification for removing from the market legal (and free speech based) material.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
5. Re: Op Ed Dec 21, 2010, 13:23 HumanTarget
 
Um...
Whiskey
Tango
Foxtrot

Over?

Disjointed argument is disjointed!

"...parents....should determine (what's) appropriate for kids..."
"...ruling in favor of CA's law will ensure parents make such decisions..."

Uh, how? If you've preemptively removed the game from the market there's no way for a parent to decide to/not to allow their child to experience it.

I correct my earlier "disjointed" comment:
Douchebag senator is douchey!
(and my apologies in advance if this is considered a personal attack)

HT
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo