Topic: What I said to Hillary (pertinent to videogames)

[GoldenPhoenix]

I think because threads like these are not closed because of the "rules" that we need the federal government to close it.

[DAaaMan64]

SUPA LAWLZ

[Crimm]

We don't need a debate about big-government small-government, federal control vs. corporate control, or morality censorship.

Actually I disagree.  I don't feel that we can restrict such conversations when they are so directly intertwined with the site as a whole.  Let's ask the Community Manager.



heh

[Crimm]

I think because threads like these are not closed because of the "rules" that we need the federal government to close it.

We'll have to open an investigative panel.  We'll need to bring officials before it: Steven "WindyMan" Rodriguez and Ty "S-U-P-E-R" Shugart will need to answer the senators' questions.

[Shift Key]

Alright Shift Key, I want to tell you, I'm rarely sarcastic.  So if I ask a question, I'm authentically asking one.  Under what circumstances would they be unconstitutional exactly?  Free speech?  I doubt it wouldn't work in ALL states. Second, If they are unconstitutional, how are they any more constitutional at the federal level?  In fact they are LESS constitutional at the federal level.

Freedom of speech is the most common one I have seen, but here's a few recent cases summarized:

Minnesota - legislated in mid-2006, the law would fine underage people who purchased the game $25. Immediately taken to court by the ESA. Thrown out a couple of months later under first amendment laws and lack of evidence that violent games harm children. The verdict has been appealed but upheld(as recently as March of this year).
Reference: http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/331688.html#cutid1

California - legislated in late-2005, the law concerned "certain violent video games" be labeled and prohibit access to these games by minors. it was appealed immediately and an injunction blocked the law from being enacted while the case was before the court. It was defeated in court due to vague interpretations and freedom of speech. It is ongoing in the courts.
Reference: http://gamepolitics.com/2007/08/06/breaking-california-2005-video-game-law-ruled-unconstitutional/

Arizona - legislated earlier this year, this law assigned liability to content producers and distributors for damages if it has been deemed to be "dangerous" and motivated someone to commit a crime. It was blocked by a Senate committee on the grounds that it was too broad and may have unintended consequences.
Reference: http://gamepolitics.com/2008/04/08/arizona-state-senate-rejects-dangerous-media-content-bill/

In all honesty, if it falls under free speech then we let it slide, and use social and community concern to solve the problem.  Mostly through education.  Education on separate subjects on social concern IS constitutional WITHOUT the DOE(unless the school can go without DOE funding). This is because protection of liberties is the highest priority.   Just because it got hard to protect free speech doesn't mean we should regulate it. 

I should have stated my viewpoint more clearly regarding state and federal lawmaking before attacking your viewpoint.

I don't believe any level government should hold the power to censor information or content. I believe the best solution to the video game legislation problem is better education and a greater understanding of how video games affect the player (both good and bad), rather than simply legislating on a "gut feeling".

Much research has been done without getting a clear picture of this (I laughed at an article last week which claimed that "Boys who don't play videogames at all are at greater risk of getting into trouble than those who play violent games occasionally" ) but I think with time - and making better use of past research- the picture should get clearer.

Beer time.

[Crimm]

OH GOD HE'S WATCHING THIS THREAD!  THE SUMMON WORKED!

[Shift Key]

OH GOD HE'S WATCHING THIS THREAD!  THE SUMMON WORKED!

I requested his presence at this disaster of a thread. Don't anger the deity.

[RABicle]

But to answer RAB's question, yes Government Welfare is one way in which the US Government takes money by force to redistribute it to others.

And supporting the less fortunate is bad?

[Shift Key]

And supporting the less fortunate is bad?

"The less fortunate get all the breaks" -- Philip J Fry

[Deguello]

But to answer RAB's question, yes Government Welfare is one way in which the US Government takes money by force to redistribute it to others.

Dangerous Waters there, UncleBob.  Not paying taxes is in violation of the Social Contract as ratified in the Constitution.  They are merely enforcing said contract when the IRS man comes a-knocking.

[DAaaMan64]

Alright Shift Key, I want to tell you, I'm rarely sarcastic.  So if I ask a question, I'm authentically asking one.  Under what circumstances would they be unconstitutional exactly?  Free speech?  I doubt it wouldn't work in ALL states. Second, If they are unconstitutional, how are they any more constitutional at the federal level?  In fact they are LESS constitutional at the federal level.

Freedom of speech is the most common one I have seen, but here's a few recent cases summarized:

Minnesota - legislated in mid-2006, the law would fine underage people who purchased the game $25. Immediately taken to court by the ESA. Thrown out a couple of months later under first amendment laws and lack of evidence that violent games harm children. The verdict has been appealed but upheld(as recently as March of this year).
Reference: http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/331688.html#cutid1

California - legislated in late-2005, the law concerned "certain violent video games" be labeled and prohibit access to these games by minors. it was appealed immediately and an injunction blocked the law from being enacted while the case was before the court. It was defeated in court due to vague interpretations and freedom of speech. It is ongoing in the courts.
Reference: http://gamepolitics.com/2007/08/06/breaking-california-2005-video-game-law-ruled-unconstitutional/

Arizona - legislated earlier this year, this law assigned liability to content producers and distributors for damages if it has been deemed to be "dangerous" and motivated someone to commit a crime. It was blocked by a Senate committee on the grounds that it was too broad and may have unintended consequences.
Reference: http://gamepolitics.com/2008/04/08/arizona-state-senate-rejects-dangerous-media-content-bill/

In all honesty, if it falls under free speech then we let it slide, and use social and community concern to solve the problem.  Mostly through education.  Education on separate subjects on social concern IS constitutional WITHOUT the DOE(unless the school can go without DOE funding). This is because protection of liberties is the highest priority.   Just because it got hard to protect free speech doesn't mean we should regulate it. 

I should have stated my viewpoint more clearly regarding state and federal lawmaking before attacking your viewpoint.

I don't believe any level government should hold the power to censor information or content. I believe the best solution to the video game legislation problem is better education and a greater understanding of how video games affect the player (both good and bad), rather than simply legislating on a "gut feeling".

Much research has been done without getting a clear picture of this (I laughed at an article last week which claimed that "Boys who don't play videogames at all are at greater risk of getting into trouble than those who play violent games occasionally" ) but I think with time - and making better use of past research- the picture should get clearer.

Beer time.

Thank you for the examples.

The first one is funny because they "couldn't come up with significant evidence" to prove that violent video games have a negative effect on children.  Thats fine, I'm curious exactly what type of legislation they are talking about?  You know, I mean are they trying to pass fines against managers or what? I'm not sure I would see that as unconstitutional, it is nearly the same as cigarettes and alcohol.  We fine places for selling porn to minors as well.

Shift Key, it doesn't appear we even have a disagreement here. I see you stated that the states shouldn't restrict it either.  Well I would agree but it becomes fuzzy because I don't know what works for the lives outside of my state.

[animecyberrat]

I retract what I said. I think this is a topic best left alone.

[UncleBob]

I'm going to reply to RAB's post. My reply is not one written with politics in mind, but moral values.

RAB: Helping those who are less fortunate is wonderful. I don't think you'll find too many people who would disagree. I've devoted a part of my time and money to charity.

With that said, there's a whole world of difference between giving money (property, etc.) to help someone out and using a gun to take money from one person and give it to someone else.

It is not charity when you're giving away someone else's money.

[DAaaMan64]

I would argue that helping those in need is a moral obligation for me as an individual(Provided I can stay afloat myself). But I don't have the moral or constitutional(this applies to federal welfare only) authority to take resources from others to put towards those who are less fortunate.

Not to mention private charity sucks less then government charity does.

[Plugabugz]

Where is a certain madonna dynamite to help get things onoff-track when you need him/her/daisy?

[vudu]

And LOL at ShyGuy.  I just want to say this, Reagan is the sexiest female first name ever. Not because of the president.

Is it because of The Exorcist?

[DAaaMan64]

And LOL at ShyGuy.  I just want to say this, Reagan is the sexiest female first name ever. Not because of the president.

Is it because of The Exorcist?

Could be, but it has been a long time since I've seen that movie and don't even remember who Reagan was.

Edit: Maybe it is because when you say Reagan it pretty much sounds like "Ray Gun" hahaha

[vudu]

She's the little girl who masturbates with a crucifix while shouting let Jesus **** you.

[Nick DiMola]

She's the little girl who masturbates with a crucifix while shouting let Jesus **** you.

Sounds hot.

[vudu]

Yeah, but then her head spins around and she vomits all over a priest, which totally kills the mood.

[DAaaMan64]

She's the little girl who masturbates with a crucifix while shouting let Jesus **** you.

wooh that is some fucked up **** right their.

[RABicle]

RAB: Helping those who are less fortunate is wonderful. I don't think you'll find too many people who would disagree. I've devoted a part of my time and money to charity.

With that said, there's a whole world of difference between giving money (property, etc.) to help someone out and using a gun to take money from one person and give it to someone else.

It is not charity when you're giving away someone else's money.

But you're not being held at gunpoint, it's tax and it's taken to provide for all the services that make our society function. It's just life and it's nothing to be hung up about.

I didn't mean to question your morality, of course you've given to charity, we all have. What I can't understand in general is the downward envy that is sometimes directed at welfare recipients. I'd rather be the one paying taxes than the one living off them, because it's not hard to figure out who has the better standard of living.

[DAaaMan64]

RAB: Helping those who are less fortunate is wonderful. I don't think you'll find too many people who would disagree. I've devoted a part of my time and money to charity.

With that said, there's a whole world of difference between giving money (property, etc.) to help someone out and using a gun to take money from one person and give it to someone else.

It is not charity when you're giving away someone else's money.

But you're not being held at gunpoint, it's tax and it's taken to provide for all the services that make our society function. It's just life and it's nothing to be hung up about.

Thats against the founder's theory on liberty.  It is still an imposed will another person and thus risks not understanding the situation of those who are being imposed on!  That is the nature of liberty.  We have barely experimented with liberty, it has only been 200 years.  It'd be nice if we could go beyond believing in it, and actually achieve it.  I don't think I need to tell you the value of income to those who work very hard.  That may include you!  But via the private sector, lower taxes, and more income to the general population as well as community charity. Things can be helped. There are a million private charities.

I know it isn't what you want to hear. 

And please read this again, it helps to understand liberty:

I would argue that helping those in need is a moral obligation for me as an individual(Provided I can stay afloat myself). But I don't have the moral or constitutional(this applies to federal welfare only) authority to take resources from others to put towards those who are less fortunate.

[RABicle]

Well if you destructive anarchists want to live like barbarians as issued by Friedman's neo-liberal economic ideology, just do it away from me then.

[DAaaMan64]

Well if you destructive anarchists want to live like barbarians as issued by Friedman's neo-liberal economic ideology, just do it away from me then.

Private charity, community help and localization of general assistance to the populous is far from barbaric. But then I think yoiu were joking.   Have fun RAB.