Out of the Blue

Explicit Video Games May Become Illegal (thanks theAntiELVIS) is a story (not too surprisingly illustrated by a GTA3 screenshot) with more details on the proposal by Rep. Joe Baca (D-California) about H.R. 4645 (story), his bill that proposes to "punish retailers who fail to enforce the video games' ratings system — slapping them with fines ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 and possible jail time for the third offense." The article offers quotes on both sides of the issue, including IDSA president Doug Lowenstein calling the proposed legislation "unconstitutional," going on to say that kids who get their hands on "M" rated games usually do so with their parents' knowledge. The article is uncertain about the chances that this will be ratified: "Baca has rallied 34 members of the House of Representatives to sign the legislation he introduced. But the bill's future is far from clear."

Link of the Day: APESGRAPES. Thanks EvilToast. And some kids actually find clowns scary!
Link of the Day II: Henry Raddick's Amazon Reviews. Thanks Jonathan C. Forster.
Auction of the Day: Capt. Kirk's Bridge Command Chair. Thanks FrogBody.
Wild Science: Is that a phone in your tooth? Thanks Ant.

View : : :
65 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older
65.
 
Re: California?
Jun 25, 2002, 20:37
Bronco
 
65.
Re: California? Jun 25, 2002, 20:37
Jun 25, 2002, 20:37
 Bronco
 
Wow - I had given up on this thread dying in the hands of one our trolls

One area that the government hasn't stepped into too deeply (to my suprise) is higher education. All of those student loans funded by the Feds going into private colleges. Only a matter of time before they tie all of the non-state owned schools in knots. Very bad deal there.

- The poster formerly known as Snappy2Stroke
-TPFKAS2S
Avatar 10139
64.
 
Re: California?
Jun 25, 2002, 14:38
64.
Re: California? Jun 25, 2002, 14:38
Jun 25, 2002, 14:38
 
#63...very mature...

The interstate commerce regulation power has in fact done just as you described. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which finally ended, at least by law, all segregation in public places and discrimination based on race, creed, or gender, is based on regulation of interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court upheld this in a court case in which a racist hotel owner in Georgia denied renting a hotel room to a black man. Being that this was discrimination by race, he was punished by law, and therefore sued because it was in his mind his right to run his business as he saw fit. He argued that he could publish racist remarks in a newspaper, and he could not be arrested because that was his basic freedom of speech. Therefore, running his hotel as he was is his right to property.

The court ruled that since it was a business open to the public, that customers could come from another state, particularly because it was a hotel. Therefore, this was intertate commerce, and the US government could regulate it. Many criticize this because it gave the US government too much power. You could justify regulating about any business by this definition and application of the term "interstate commerce." But it did help our society in many ways, such has helping interracial interaction in public places.

63.
 
Re: California?
Jun 24, 2002, 08:48
anon@205.188
63.
Re: California? Jun 24, 2002, 08:48
Jun 24, 2002, 08:48
anon@205.188
 
Just shut the fuck up! We don't want to hear anything from you cocksuckers! If you are reading this then go fuck a dog!
62.
 
Re: California?
Jun 23, 2002, 20:56
Bronco
 
62.
Re: California? Jun 23, 2002, 20:56
Jun 23, 2002, 20:56
 Bronco
 
Bronco (or is that Snappy2Stroke) did clarify for which thanks.

I got tired of my made up screen name and decided to go with the name that all my close friends call me.

Anyway thanks for the clarification. I'd always though of the US Constitution as being like 'founding principles' for the running of a nation, not the sort of thing that you bring up over retail sales legislation.

Funny you should say that. The US Constitution gives the congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. So, if it involves a product that is made in one state and is transported across state lines for sales, bingo, congress can latch onto it, regulate it, tax it, etc. This also provides the legislature with the foundation required to write some pretty far reaching laws that will pass constitutional muster.

I believe that the US Constitution was written to be above every US citizen (a rule of law vs a rule by the aristocracy) and it was supposed to be very difficult to change. Less and less people in the states take the time to understand just how our government is supposed to work. Nowadays many people believe that our government is a true democracy when it really isn't and was never intended to be one. Very sad.



- The poster formerly known as Snappy2Stroke

-edit for clarity

This comment was edited on Jun 23, 21:00.
-TPFKAS2S
Avatar 10139
61.
 
Re: California?
Jun 23, 2002, 15:38
61.
Re: California? Jun 23, 2002, 15:38
Jun 23, 2002, 15:38
 
Umm you're aware that they do have a Constitution in the UK?
I'm not sure what this has to do with what I wrote. He was asking why the term "Unconstitutional" is bandied about so often in the US. I attempted to answer his question briefly. I'm well aware of the similarities between the two governments. However, there must be differences as Anvil does not understand why people in the States are always throwing that term around

edit: thats me being late not you two guys
talk about being late responding after asking a question.

Bronco (or is that Snappy2Stroke) did clarify for which thanks. We do have a constitution here in the UK, however as it is neither written down, and is (supposedly) constantly evolving it doesn't act as a highest point of reference for legal issues (except perhaps who members of the royal family may or may not marry - basically catholics are out). the equivalent here might be to go to (one of) the House of Lords or the European Court and argue the case with reference to relevant legislation.

Anyway thanks for the clarification. I'd always though of the US Constitution as being like 'founding principles' for the running of a nation, not the sort of thing that you bring up over retail sales legislation.




Anvil
This comment was edited on Jun 23, 15:39.
Anvil - from the land of warm beer and mad cattle.
60.
 
Re: What the hell?
Jun 22, 2002, 22:50
60.
Re: What the hell? Jun 22, 2002, 22:50
Jun 22, 2002, 22:50
 
It's just a blaming game... game companies say it's the retailer's fault or the parent's fault, parents say it's the retailer's fault or the game company's fault, lawmakers say it's the game company's fault or the retailer's fault, etc.. just keeps going around in circles because nobody will do anything about it themselves. I think the best method would be teaching kids better at an early age; the responsibility of ultimately the parent. It's unbelievable when you can ask a kid what his parents would think of his actions, and he/she says they wouldn't care, or worse yet, that's where they got the idea! How are kids being raised today?

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
Huh? I'm sorry, I was thinking about cake.
59.
 
Re: What the hell?
Jun 22, 2002, 11:00
59.
Re: What the hell? Jun 22, 2002, 11:00
Jun 22, 2002, 11:00
 
He used illegal drug use to show that making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it.

My point is OF COURSE! Why do you think we make laws?! If people didn't kill each other, no one would make murder laws.

The simple fact of the matter is people in business are out to make money, as much money as possible. They do NOT do what is in the best interests of the community.

MSRB rating systems work because there is a large amount of cooperation with movie theaters, renters, and sellers. The question here is what if there isn't that cooperation.

Often times laws are proposed like this not to get them passed, but to draw attention to the issue. The issue here is a 5 year old can go into a store and buy Quake3. That is a problem!!! By all means, if the industry can't solve the problem, it's the role of the government to do so on behalf of the people.

58.
 
Re: What the hell?
Jun 21, 2002, 18:15
58.
Re: What the hell? Jun 21, 2002, 18:15
Jun 21, 2002, 18:15
 
"MammaPJ
By your argument, if people do something despite it being illegal, the law should be stricken down because they're gonna do it anyway

Therefore, virtually every law should be stricken down because people still commit murder, robbery, rape, etc.

This is rediculous. The question is will it decrease an action we're trying to decrease, and at what costs.
"

He was talking about stuff people do to themselves, drug/alcohol use...

And in Canada we are well on our way to legalizing pot, just because so many people use it, and there are no real negative effects to the people who do not use it.
Here in BC I think there have been less than 10 arrests due to pot over the last 2 years (and no jail time)... compaired to the US where people are getting life sentences for the same crime...


57.
 
against first amendment
Jun 21, 2002, 09:14
57.
against first amendment Jun 21, 2002, 09:14
Jun 21, 2002, 09:14
 
What about the managers "right to refuse" or is that illegal too? If you sign up for blockbuster then you surely sign a COC or TOC that says managers have right to refuse.

Its not the cough that carries you off but the coffin they carry you off in.
56.
 
Re: The good life
Jun 21, 2002, 05:17
56.
Re: The good life Jun 21, 2002, 05:17
Jun 21, 2002, 05:17
 
If you dont't have the time to spend quality time to spend with your kids or just don't want to, you shouldn't be having children in the first place

Indeed. I've said it a thousand times, a vetting system for prospective parents is needed if we're to stop stupid people bringing more stupid people into the world. Irresponsible parents bring up irresponsible children, who become irresponsible parents and so on.

It's a well used adage, but it rings true: you need a license to own a dog, but any idiot can have children.


(edited for the inevitable early morning typos ;P)
This comment was edited on Jun 21, 05:20.
55.
 
Re: Let's focus on what's really important
Jun 20, 2002, 21:50
indiv
 
55.
Re: Let's focus on what's really important Jun 20, 2002, 21:50
Jun 20, 2002, 21:50
 indiv
 
Complained about Mr Raddick? Come on, get a sense of humor. many of his reviews (I use the term lightly) were hilarious, even if it's not what the Amazon "reviews system" is for.

54.
 
The good life
Jun 20, 2002, 19:27
anon@24.201
54.
The good life Jun 20, 2002, 19:27
Jun 20, 2002, 19:27
anon@24.201
 
I'm glad I live in Canada, such things are trivial here. The Canadian government will not let it's economy fall throught the ground because somebody got hurt or killed.

On the main topic...

I love it when parents blame everything but themselves when here children become a problem. In certain circumstanses I can agree with them (my parents), but the majority of them are horible (or ignorant) parents in the first place. What did you except when you planted your kids infront of the idiot box for 8 hours straight? (computers or consoles alike). This would also explain why children today are so overweight and lazy. If you dont't have the time to spend quality time to spend with your kids or just don't want to, you shouldn't be having children in the first place.
53.
 
Re: What the hell?
Jun 20, 2002, 18:52
anon@208.251
53.
Re: What the hell? Jun 20, 2002, 18:52
Jun 20, 2002, 18:52
anon@208.251
 
Let's clear a few things up here, shall we?

1) It is not illegal to rent or sell tickets for an R rated movie to minors. The MPAA is a self-imposed rating system, since any government rating system would violate the first amendment.

2) Similarly, ESRB is a self-imposed rating system. Retailers are responsible to enforce the system as they see fit. If a retailer disagrees with the system, he/she can make the company decision not to follow it.

3) In the article, it stated 80% of games are purchased by adults. Why should the retailers be held liable if the parents aren't?

4) The average gamer is 23 years old. With 16 yr olds being the largest age group. 9-12 yrs old is no longer the norm. As gamers get older, so do games. This law hopes to close retail doors to the older games on the idea that only kids are the ones playing.

5) No matter what any article says, no conclusive proof has shown a connection between video game violence and violence in real life. Period. Everything said on this subject is one or another "experts" opinions on it. You can make numbers say anything. I personally think there's a connection between Abba music and violence, and I'm sure I could find numbers to back that up (crime has gone down since the 70s, a coincidence?). An old saying is psychology, "A corrilation is not a cause." That's all this "evidence" of video game influence is, a corrilation.

In the end, laws like this come about because the video game industry, while large, has no real lobby, not a lot of legitamacy, and is generally seen by most of the public as a "fringe" pastime. Anyone remember the Comics Code?
52.
 
Re: What the hell?
Jun 20, 2002, 17:47
52.
Re: What the hell? Jun 20, 2002, 17:47
Jun 20, 2002, 17:47
 
By your argument, if people do something despite it being illegal, the law should be stricken down because they're gonna do it anyway. Therefore, virtually every law should be stricken down because people still commit murder, robbery, rape, etc.

Yes, but the difference is, murder, robbery and rape are *actual crimes*, ones that one person commits against another, and the other person is harmed by it. Peaceful commerce between two parties can never be considered a crime. If a store wants to endure the massive reptuation damage it will endure if it sells booze to a 9 year old, so be it; but if that 9 year old wanted booze, guess what, there are other ways than legally.


51.
 
Re: What the hell?
Jun 20, 2002, 17:32
51.
Re: What the hell? Jun 20, 2002, 17:32
Jun 20, 2002, 17:32
 
"So? They do the things even if they ARE illegal. Or do you believe that no one at all smokes pot and crack anymore?"

By your argument, if people do something despite it being illegal, the law should be stricken down because they're gonna do it anyway.

Therefore, virtually every law should be stricken down because people still commit murder, robbery, rape, etc.

This is rediculous. The question is will it decrease an action we're trying to decrease, and at what costs.


50.
 
No subject
Jun 20, 2002, 07:32
anon@62.156
50.
No subject Jun 20, 2002, 07:32
Jun 20, 2002, 07:32
anon@62.156
 
I'm afraid the impact of such a law could be greater than you seem to expect. In Germany there is a similar system in place (and for quite some time, too): A small number of games (not necessarily every M-rated game) cannot be sold to minors and cannot be placed on shop shelves or be advertised. This actually damages sales.
And the industry reacts with "voluntary" self-censoring for games translated into german.
I believe this could happen in the US, too, and therefore affect not only adults but every gamer.
49.
 
Re: Let's focus on what's really important
Jun 20, 2002, 03:41
anon@216.239
49.
Re: Let's focus on what's really important Jun 20, 2002, 03:41
Jun 20, 2002, 03:41
anon@216.239
 
I've complained to Amazon about Mr Raddick. Thats not what the reviews system is for. Not to mention the blatent attack on homosexuality in one of his reviews.

- Jar.
48.
 
Re: What the hell?
Jun 20, 2002, 02:54
48.
Re: What the hell? Jun 20, 2002, 02:54
Jun 20, 2002, 02:54
 
If a 16-year old went into Blockbuster and rented Gladiator and Platoon that Blockbuster would be breaking the law.

Actually, it wouldn't. No law enforces the MPAA ratings; to do so would be a violation of the first amendment. It's just that most theaters and rental places abide by the rating.

the reason that government needs to do these things is because there is always some idiot out there that would do these things if they weren't illegal...

So? They do the things even if they ARE illegal. Or do you believe that no one at all smokes pot and crack anymore?

47.
 
Re: I agree with #23
Jun 20, 2002, 00:39
47.
Re: I agree with #23 Jun 20, 2002, 00:39
Jun 20, 2002, 00:39
 
#34 said:

Try being a parent and deciding what is appropriate for your child for a change. I've been playing video games (most of them violent in some form of the word) since I was five or six and I sure didn't kill my scholastic peers, nor my colleagues at work. Perhaps you were especially retarded as a child, but I certainly wasn't. I don't want you forcing your child's retardation on mine.
-- End Quote ---

I'm not exactly sure here whether you are insinuating that I participated in the killing of my 'scholastic peers' (or for that matter what it is that you actually wish to say), but I offer you a little bit of free advice: if you're goal is to sound intelligent in your posts there are two things you can do to improve your credibility: the first is to avoid reducing yourself to ad hominem attacks, and the second is to try to write something that actually makes sense, dumbass.
---
Chris.
46.
 
Re: What the hell?
Jun 19, 2002, 22:10
46.
Re: What the hell? Jun 19, 2002, 22:10
Jun 19, 2002, 22:10
 
If a 16-year old went into Blockbuster and rented Gladiator and Platoon that Blockbuster would be breaking the law.
--Ewigekraft23
65 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older