Georgia Guv Candidate Promises Video Game Legislation
Georgia Guv Candidate Promises Video Game Legislation
September 27, 2006
In Georgia, Lieutenant Governor Mark Taylor is now making a bid for the top job. The Democrat is running TV spots promising to legislate video games.
It's the second ad we've seen in the last 24 hours that seems to equate the threat of violent video games with that posed by online predators. The other is from Ed Perlmutter (see following article) from Colorado.
Comments
This is Why the industry needs to be activly taking legal action, shit like this. It's defamatory to the industry, based on lies and misinformation, and equates two compltely seperate issues together.
I swear if the ESA doesn't get busy I suggest we all start a campaign to get them fired and replaced with someone who gives a fuck about the industry.
- Warren Lewis
This message got hit by spam filters and thought it was spam.
- Warren Lewis
first amendment wins everytime.
Interesting how that connection is being made more and more. Does anyone know if any of the court challenges to violent video games used that connection yet?
Then again, is it that hard to supervise your kid? Or better yet use the vast number of programs and services that already aid in supervision?
I wonder how long it took the 1960s generation to get rock and roll in the mainstream. Video games are our equivelant in that they're new, 'scary' and different.
Oh, and whoever wrote the copy for that ad has a poor grasp of syntax. The last bit, "...and the death penalty for repeat child molesters" is missing a verb, making it seem like he actually wants to *outlaw* the death penalty for repeat child molesters, since "outlaw" is the preceding verb. Nice going.
Oh and I *love* that we've been associated with child molesters too.
He doesn't have to. Internet Explorer has a Content Advisor setting, coupled with the fact that services such as NetNanny exist. It doesn't get any easier to block porn on the internet than that, unless they passed that proposition that all pornographic websites should have a domain suffix of .xxx (blocking an entire suffix is the easiest thing to do when it comes to custom filters) which they didn't because they thought it would make porn more easily accessable (as if that wasn't easy enough, thanks Google).
Anyway, after the video game part, the "DEATH PENALTY FOR CHILD MOLESTERS!!" part shocked me. Whatever happened to the days when you told your kids not to go to creepy Mr. Smith's house and then sent them outside to play? :P Just kidding. I just don't like the death penalty very much.
Not to mention all these laws have been struck down as the 100% unconstitutional pieces of shit they are and will just flatout waste taxpayers money defending in court (as well as paying the plantiffs lawyer fees when it's struck down). I really hope this guy loses the election for Governor as playing the "protect the children", lets scapegaot the new guy in entertainment for all our kids problems bullshit is the lowest form of political manuvering and vote pandering.
Sadly, Mark Taylor is the best Gubernatorial candidate that GA Dems can come up with; Cathy Cox was looking decent there for a while, but she really blew it towards the end of the pre-primary period. Both Taylor and Perdue are good ol' boys who are just telling their idiot constituencies what they want to hear; how exactly does Tayor plan to make it easier for parents to block porn sites?
Here's what I'd like to see: Mark Tayor (or perhaps a Dem with some balls) to say "The internet should be a safe haven for free speech, and parents are responsible for monitoring their childrens' online activities." A pipe dream to be sure, but it sure would be nice to hear once in a while!
I got this off his election website, What Mr. Mark Taylor doesn't seem to understand is that the MPAA rating system is NOT enforced by law. It's volunatary just like the ESRB rating system. Obviously this moron has no idea what he's talking about. He should stick to the issues he understands.
Okay If I am not mistaken 85 % of the time an M rated game is bought by the parent. So making it illegal for children 17 years or younger to buy the game, hardly helps. And it is also unconstitutional to do so.
And I truly wonder where Mark gets his pornographic games from. In America they don't even sell those games in the stores as far as I know. When something is rated AO, it is no longer carried by most stores. Let me guess, he is referring to GTA again. GTA didn't contain pornographic images at all, not even with Hot Coffee. Since when is dryhumping pornographic? And you needed to download a mod to even see this in the first place. When parents don't want their children to do this, don't give them an M rated game. Also don't give them access to the Internet when you aren't there to monitor them. And when you don't have the time to do this, don't take any children. Don't expect the rest of the world to do the parenting for you. Our hobby shouldn't have to suffer because some parents are too lazy to parent their own children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVeUwnjhZU8&eurl=
Hahahahah!
Ok I have ATV Off Road Fury 3 this game can be called a atv simulator if Jack Thompson wants to call all games that. That doesn't mean I'm going to go outside and try jumping 200 feet while doing a back flip with it. It also doesn't mean I'm going to go chasing after a tornado with my atv just to be thrown a mile away to a different part of a track.
Or the Deer Hunter games, I don't hunt animals it's just something I don't find fair and challenging. But give it to me in a game and I go off hunting for the animals with no remorse whats-so-ever.
I play SOCOM Navy Seals but that doesn't mean I'm going to go enlist in the navy seals to become one.
I Play HotShots Golf but I can't stand real Golf just because I play a game about it doesn't meen I'm going to play the real thing.
I Play AIRSOFT!!! OMG this is an outdoors game which me and all of my friends have guns that look so real that the only way to tell they arn't is buy the orange tip that the law makes them have. We play all the time shooting each other. Doing different senerios like POW, All Against All, Terroist Vs Seals, Defuse Bombs, Capture the Flag. We play these games which teach us to aim a gun and shoot the other people with tiny plastic BBs that hurt when you get shot. But we don't do it for training to take out someone with real guns, we do it because it's fun and exciting. The same reason we play GTA:VC & SA it's fun but we know it's not real.
I tried reading his site for specific on his proposals. It seems he wants to give government subsidies to filtering software, which seems doable but messy and uneccesary considering it's not terribly expensive anyway and I'd think anyone who could afford internet service could afford it.
He wants to ban the sale of M and AO rated games to minors. As previously mentioned, he doesn't seem to be familiar with the court cases about similar video game legislation, which have rules the science isn't nearly strong enough to justify an exception to first ammendment and that you can't give private bodies legal powers (it's a violation of separation fo powers), or even standing laws about movies.
His proposal for execution of child molestors is frighteningly vague. It's two strikes and you're out. He doesn't specify any particular crimes or categories that would qualify, so presumably any sort of offense with a minor could count. Here in Iowa, where we've recently gotten tough on sex offenders, it's become clear that lots of things will get you on the registry, including walking outside naked to get your paper. It's bad enough numerous people who commited fairly minor offenses many years ago can't get a job or live anywhere. This guy wants to execute them, too.
What's hillarious is a person who claims to be caring for the kids. I have not seen one elected official give a damn about our children or their educations or anything ever. The people you see giving a damn are non-profits and organizations of parents concerned about their children and trying to make up for the deficiencies in the national school system, flaws which state and government agencies have yet to ever fix. Every election these morons go around stating they'll do this and they'll do that, and then when they are elected, they blow the state surplus on things that won't benefit anyone but probably medicare people. Not to say medicare is bad, or the elderly, or such, but in retrospect, we spend more money as a nation on healthcare and old people than we do our children. I don't have numbers, but I'm sure if I looked them up they'd be close. For these idiots to think that people will vote for them because they'll fix an issue that affects 4% of the total population is retarded. How many cases do you actually see people killing people over violent media? Columbine was the last I knew with direct links.
The Internet, like the rest of the world, is perfectly safe if you are safe about it. Maybe Mother should be taking an active role in Daughter's life so then she might notice that she's been using 14 sexualy suggestive screennames on AIM to talk to strangers on the internet, arranging to meet them in the mall. Guess she won't realize the folly in that action until said stranger kidnaps Daughter and kills her. True story in Connecticut.
Parents should know what there children are doing.
if the kids parents are too dumb to let them rent it then its not the games fault for whats in it its the parents for being dumbasses
same for the internet
if a parent doesnt know what there kid is doing then we have a major problem
As far as the internet goes I dont think anyone should allow their child unlimited access to the internet, thats just a bad idea on the parents fault again. The internet contains way too much information you dont even want you child watching on television, why would you let them be exposed to it online?
The whole issue about our youth being corrupted stems from the already corrupt government trying to place blame on an easy target. Its just a shame they cant use their "power" to help better society.
DEATH PENELTY FOR REPEAT CHILD MOLESTERS
HELL YES
We can all agree that children whose age is in the single digits should not play Mature games, nor should they watch pornography. The notion of a nine-year old playing 'God of War' is a little disturbing (for those who don't know, here's how God of War works: in any other game, you'd shoot down a harpy. In God of War, you jump on the harpy's back, tear out its wings, and break its spine, all the blood and gore included). Nor should a ten year-old be watching something like 'Kitty Kitty Bang Bang.'
While some say that it should be up to the parents, the parents are only human. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where they could use some help.
However, don't take me as a conservative. The older you are, the more fluid are the rules. For example, I'm not yet a major (18+), but I played Diablo 2 in all its violent glory (in fact, my parents even bought it for me) because I knew that I was mature enough to handle it when I was 15, despite the fact that it was rated mature.
In conclusion, this man should not be lambasted for trying to do the right thing within a conservative view. Besides, I don't think he's relating the two; the unifying theme in the commercial is 'Protect our Children' not 'Video Games = Child Molestors'.
It's a little thing called responsibility, it's kinda important. Yes, there are accidents, and yes, things happen that shouldn't. HOWEVER, do you honestly think that any game retailer worth anything is going to put an M-rated game like God of War in the hands of an eight year old without their parents present?
I know I'm not allowed to purchase R rated games at 14. Even my 18-year-old sister has been asked for ID when buying an R16 game. At school, we have filters on the computers, and they are pretty damn effective. It has never been possible for me to visit questionable websites, and believe me, I've tried. So I really don't know what he's proposing to do.
Yet the notion of that same nine-year old watching a movie like Sin City doesn't bother you at all? The problem isn't just that this guy is trying to legislate games, it's that he is trying to legislate ONLY games, and not other potentially harmful forms of media like movies, TV, etc.
And before you ask, no, there is no law that says a minor can't buy an R-rated movie. The MPAA is 100% voluntary, just like the ESRB. Not only that, but a relativly recent FTC study showed that it is easier for a minor to buy an R-rated movie than an M-rated game. What do you have to say about that?
And back to video games: I play plenty of video games, and I'm not violent at all. Sometimes I get mad at people for being stupid, but then, I AM (Not trying to brag, my IQ is 181, sorry if that sounds like bragging) overly smart. I just wish people would THINK before they say something. Anyway, It isn't fair to associate Real-Life violence with video game violence. That's like saying that because I looked at a Burger King, Im gonna work there when I'm older. Ah well, can't change other people, but really?
All I'm asking you to do is THINK. Just. Think.
However, I do allow parents some absolution. The Federal government, in concert with major news outlets has done a phenominal job extolling the virtues of "righteous violence" (which, might I add, is subjective, Mr. President. But I digress.) that I can easily understand why a young person may have difficulty discerning what manner of violent behavior is appropriate (scarcely any) and which is not. I feel the need to point out that the nearly all forms of news media spew forth mountains of violence and grotesque violations of human decency on a daily basis. (with cnn offering us Violence On The Hour (tm)) The world is a violent place, to be sure, but I certainly don't distinguish between nightly reports of suicide bombings and escaped serial rapists, and say, the latest Hollywood action flick. Why bother? I fail to see any reason why i should spend money on a movie ticket or rental for a horror flick when i can be terrified out of my wits by the birds out my window-which according to Fox News- are going to kill me with the Avian Flu virus. There we are; I'm terrified and i didn't even have to leave the couch.
I realize that i have digressed far more than i had intended to, but the point needed to be made: don't try to blame video games for violent behavior, when there is more violence every day on the evening news; and don't blame video game retailers for parents who are too busy to raise their own children and would rather have the television do it for them.
Semicolon: Congratulations, you have responsible parents. Lucky you. Know, what should we do for those who don't, hm? Granted, legislature doesn't work in one hundred percent of all cases, but every little bit helps.
Ufosde: Remember, he's trying to get elected. Take everything he says with a grain of salt. He's addressing a hot-button issue where, if he actually does follow through on his promise, it will do some good. Maybe not a lot, but some. (On a personal note, IQ is meaningless. Isaac Asimov wrote an essay on it. Go read it.)
JChaos: You admit that accidents do happen. Well, what's wrong with trying to limit these accidents?
One has to understand that I'm not endorsing this candidate; I dislike politicians in general. However, the idea behind his promise (protecting children) is worthy of merit.
Also, I understand that laws don't work one hundred percent of the time. Despite legal limits, children under 18 are still getting ahold of cigarettes. Does that mean we should scrap the age requirements on buying cigarettes entirely? Obviously not.
Posting as a UK citizen... we have that kind of legistlation here for age-restricted games (and movies, videotapes/DVDs, literature, alcohol, cigarettes, gasoline/paraffin/butane, other items such as knives, solvents, spraypaint, etc) and A FAT LOT OF GOOD IT DOES TOO. Some people respect it. Most cannot give a crap, and apply their own moral code, either being more strict, or finding ways around the law in the name of leniency (in the face of what they see as overly restrictive governance).
It doesn't apply so much to games, as only a few are subject to the same type of legally binding BBFC ratings as movies/videos (those with explicit content in cutscene videos, i think?), but the highly questionable effectiveness of both voluntary game ratings so far, and long-standing, legally binding ones on other media and other goods should give this fruitcake pause for thought.
First off Cigerettes aren't Free Speech. They don't express ideas, information, messgaes, opinions and viewpoints.
Second of all there is strong, constistant, undisputable evidence proving that cigerettes are harmful. There is no such evidence when it comes to violent video games and harm to minors. At best all the evidence shows is a weak correlation and the use of dubious and reduculous proxies (eg. hitting plastic dolls, giving noise blasts and popping balloons) to determine aggressive or violent behavior.
Thirdly the whole parents can't be around their kids 24/7 is not an excuse for government regulation in our lives. Religious parents who don't want their kids reading Harry Potter novels can't be around 24/7 to make sure their kids aren't reading them. Shouldn't we have a law barring the sale of Harry Potter novels to minors because some parents don't want their kids reading them. What about atheist or jewish or muslim parents who don't want their kids reading the Bible. Shouldn't we ban the Bible to them also. The fact of the matter is if we are going to ban the sale of materials to minors SOLELY because some parents find them unsuitable or inappropriate and they can't be around 24/7 to make sure they don't get ahold of them, we'd have to ban the sale or everything and anything out there to minors as everything out there is likely to be found unsuitable in the eyes of some parent.
Fouthly, young single digit aged kids don't go around ON THERE OWN with $50 in hand to the local video game retailer to buy the latest copy of GTA. Shit the only place single digit kids should be able to go to one thier own without an adult is around the local neiborhood (sorry spelling sucks), and no single digit aged kid should have anywhere near enough to buy a video game on them.
Fifthly, every single law of this kind has been struck down as an unconstitutional restriction on minors Free Speech rights in every single court it's gone to. By proposing this law the GOV candidate is just going to waste precious taxpayers dollars that could be going to something that's actually important and meaningful. Both on their own defence of the law in court and having to pay the plantiffs lawyer's fees when they lose. Just like Indianapolis and Illinois.
Even if this guy somehow made it easier for parents to block sites and/or stop kids from buying video games, the ones without parents responsible enough to do it now aren't going to benefit at all, are they? If they won't take simple steps to ensure their child's 'safety' now, then they aren't going to just because this man said so.
Hopefully,this will force the ESA to notice and take retaliatory measures
Azarias: Take it with a SALT LICK. Yes Yes, he's trying to get elected, we all understand that here. But out there, in the real world, there are parents who never touched a keyboard before and dont know what the internet is, thus they fear it... Again most of them have also never touched a Video Game, PC or Console, and knowing little about it, they fear it.
Mark Taylor is playing on peoples fears and using scare tactics to boost his support. This advertisement is not uncommon on our television sets down here.
Now, Straight UP, what can Mark Taylor Do For You? (Keep In Mind, I have done little research on the topic so far)
He can give you something that will block bad websites, if you dont have to program it or input any information, then he's not fixing the problem. If you do have to input any information, chances are you are a responsible parent, which means there was no need for Mark Taylor to give you the software.
He can ban sale of M and R rated media to minors... Last I checked, and everyone else apparently, Most retail stores refuse to sell those items to minors anyways, yet parents and older siblings often buy the games for the 'minor' to play. THIS IS NOT ILLEGAL. For someone over the age of 21 to purchase alcohol for a minor, it is illegal, for someone over the age of 18 to purchase an M or R rated media, it is not illegal, and thus any law to restrict the sale of M or R rated Media to minors is redundant to many policies already in place, and no more effective.
Death penalty to Repeat child molesters... This is the only statement that has any plausability in having an effect, yet... The Death Penalty is still a big thing... The current jail system however is overflowing and there has even been a number of successful escapes, and I would rather pay for an execution than giving free room and board to someone who happened to play footsie across the lunchroom twice.
In Georgia, the parents who can afford Internet and videogames for their minors often have no time to spend with the child and purchase anything to appease the child, even alcohol and drugs... example, a 40,000$ new car at age 16... which kills at least one high school student per school a year (I made this up, but every year at my highschool, there was at least one fatality due to accedents.)
I understand he wants to be popular, but unfortunately, the truth is the hardest thing for a grown adult and parent to hear, unless they happen to be good parents. Untill parental quality improves, there is no saving the next generation...
Regardless, getting the lies and bs to stop should take first priority, then once the media is to afraid to lie anymore, we can start having real discussion and debate, and not Thompson like fear mongering and bullshit.
First off, there are several similarities between cigarettes and video games. One, they're both addicting. Two, cigarettes should not be given to young children, and neither should violent video games. There lies the crux of my argument: we have laws limiting the sale of cigarettes to minors because it damages them. It's the same idea with violent video games. We can both agree that a nine year old should not play God of War, nor should he be smoking. Just because kids are still getting cigarettes the same way kids are still getting violent video games doesn't mean that we should scrap the laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to children.
Second: Scientific studies concerning how video games affect children are notoriously untrustworthy, with different studies supporting either side of the argument. However, I'm sure we can agree that a young child should not be playing a violent video game.
Granted, there are different levels of violence (I would not prohibit a five year old from playing a game where the antagonist gets bopped on the nose, especially if the characters are fluffy, anthropomorphic teddy bears, but I would stop him from playing Grand Theft Auto), and I probably should have clarified this earlier: I am against giving games that have an excessive amount of violence to children; I think the ESRB ratings are spot on when it comes to determining whether or not a game is suitable for a certain age group. (As a side note: Damn, was that a long sentence! It should be in a Nabukof story...)
Quote: "Thirdly the whole parents can’t be around their kids 24/7 is not an excuse for government regulation in our lives." Here's a Canadian example: why should the government bother sending one hundred dollars a month to parents for childcare? Obviously, since parents can't look after their toddlers twenty-four seven, the government has no excuse to muck about their personal lives. The government should withdraw all assistance whatsoever! (For the ignorant, that was sarcasm)
Finally, there was never a call for banning these video games. I agree with the American First Amendment: these games should not be banned, that is a violation of free speech. I'd say something about Jack Thompson, but I'm afraid of getting sued. However, just because Mein Kampf can be protected by the First Amendment doesn't mean it should be on the summer reading lists of eleven and twelve year olds, does it now?
(As an aside note: If you acknowledge your poor spelling, why don't you correct it?)
I'm not implying that you should list EVERYTHING you don't want in the hands of a small child. All I'm saying is that if violent video games are so harmful to kids of that age that we need to legislate them, why not do the same for violent movies? It's worked for the U.K. and Canada, because the politicians there are GENUINELY CONCERNED about the harm of media, not just exploiting the current generation's "boogeyman." When these politicians condemn violent games but don't say a peep about violent movies, it just sends me the message that they are focusing more on the medium, not the content. I heart hypocrisy.
Azarias: Dont even start with rudeness concerning spelling and grammer Mr. "...Lucky you. Know, what should we do for those who..." Notice the Know, where the Now should be. Why didn't you correct it?
Ok, I'm not trying to be mean about it, but you threw the first stone, and I would appreciate it if this debate can be held in a mature fashion.
The similarities between Cigerettes and Videogames stop at 'Purchase'. But If I recall my laws correctly, it is not actually illegal for minor to smoke cigerettes, just to sell them to minors. If you want a good comparison, use my Alcohol comparison. Alcohol has linked to Violent Behavior more times than history can recall. It is also illegal to purchase FOR minors, not just for minors to purchase. Videogames are not illegal for minors to purchase, but many retail stores have policies that prohibit them from selling M rated games to Minor, but an adult who purchases a Video Game for their child is not blocked by those policies.
"parents can’t be around their kids 24/7 is not an excuse for government regulation in our lives.” Correct, parenting is still left to the adult in the end. Should the government REGULATE (key word there, remember it Azarias.) lives of children? no. Should government support the raising of children by sending one hundred dollars a month to parents for childcare? I would like to see it in America! A regulation tells a parent how to parent, or just flat out says children cannot be outside after 6PM. A 100$ supplement to income for child support allows that parent to buy the child 2 extra violent video games that the single digit year child should not be playing in the first place, but the parent is too busy working/sleeping/living to spend any quality time with the child...
Its not what the government does that effects a child, no matter how they try, its the parents... but no politician is going to be elected into office using a policy of 'Responsible Parenting'. But reguardless, Mark Taylor has flat out stated near imposibilities and bill of rights infringing laws.
Oh, and The fact of the matter is, He IS associating internet Pornography, Video Games and Child Molesters as his bill "Child Protection Act of 2007. " Has all three inside. Either All three pass, or all three (and god knows what other minor details he leaves out) fail. He's using scare tactics to advance his own agenda, which has little corelation to his stated goals (Education and Crime reduction), which a simple association with the education system would have been much more effective and appropriate.
I wasn't comparing Harry Potter to violent games. What i was saying was that Harry Potter like Violent Games can be found unsuitable and inappropriate in the eyes of some parents. SO ,if we were going to restrict access to violent games to minors SOLELY because they were offensive in the eyes of some parents, we'd have to do it with Harry Potter books to, because some parents find Harry Potter novels offensive for their children.
First off, there are several similarities between cigarettes and video games. One, they’re both addicting. Two, cigarettes should not be given to young children, and neither should violent video games. There lies the crux of my argument: we have laws limiting the sale of cigarettes to minors because it damages them. It’s the same idea with violent video games. We can both agree that a nine year old should not play God of War, nor should he be smoking. Just because kids are still getting cigarettes the same way kids are still getting violent video games doesn’t mean that we should scrap the laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to children.
Yet unlike cigerettes there is no evidence that violent games actually damage children as i mentioned in my first post. As for addicition, all video games can be addicting to kids, not just the violent ones.
"Second: Scientific studies concerning how video games affect children are notoriously untrustworthy, with different studies supporting either side of the argument. However, I’m sure we can agree that a young child should not be playing a violent video game."
I agree that an 8 year old should be playing GOW, but like i mentioned in my first post, 8 year olds don't go out on thier very own to the local video game shop with $50 in hand to buy the latest GTA. With that said though by the time someone is in teen years or close to it i believe they should be able to play any game, watch any movie, read any book, or listen to any song they want. By the time they're that age they have the full capability to understand the difference between right and wrong, reality and fantasy and the difference between right and wrong. and if they don't, something is seriously psychologically wrong with them and they should be locked in a four room padded cell.
"Quote: “Thirdly the whole parents can’t be around their kids 24/7 is not an excuse for government regulation in our lives.” Here’s a Canadian example: why should the government bother sending one hundred dollars a month to parents for childcare? Obviously, since parents can’t look after their toddlers twenty-four seven, the government has no excuse to muck about their personal lives. The government should withdraw all assistance whatsoever! (For the ignorant, that was sarcasm)"
Read my post again and you'll see what i was talking about. Actually read my first post in this reply and you'll see what i meant by that. I was talking about government regulation in regards to helping parents keep their kids away from things they (as in the parents) find inappropriate or unsuitable for their children. Barring any sort of proven harm (of which there is none), this should be the sole responsibility of the parents.
"Finally, there was never a call for banning these video games. I agree with the American First Amendment: these games should not be banned, that is a violation of free speech.
The First Amendment also protects a Minors access to Free Speech materials. Minors like Adults have the ability to form there own viewpoints based on unrestricted and uncensored access to information, messages, opinions and viewpoints brought forth through Free Speech materials. The only material that can contitutionally be barred to minors is material that is obscene to minors as Obsenity isn't protected by Free Speech. The obscene to minors laws are the same as the obscenity laws to adults as brought forth through Miller vs. California except all three prongs of the test are in regards to minors rather then adults. Violent games or even Mein Kampf shouldn't be banned either to minors or adults.
"(As an aside note: If you acknowledge your poor spelling, why don’t you correct it?)"
Sorry, I didn't bother to have a spellchecker on me.
I posted this in the forums and in the LJ:
Children(and everyone else, for that matter) are already being protected. Rights are never taken away or kept from people. They're just being "protected" from something else thanks to our buddy, the First Amendment.
Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, we all know the old "you can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater" rule, which is always given as an example of how freedom of speech is not an absolute, as you can't use it to put others in harm's way. However, if you are going to infringe on a Constitutional right such as freedom of speech, you had better damn well show the people absolute proof that the speech in question(in this case, "violent" video games) is in fact dangerous. Guess what? It's NEVER been done. There is no absolute proof that any harm will come of anyone who plays a violent video game.
If there's a danger so clear and so threatening to the American people that Congress feels the need to step on the First Amendment and pretty much say "We're changing this Amendment and making laws abridging your freedom of speech," wouldn't any rational thinking person believe that the danger would have to be so obvious and so clear that there's no argument about it? You're directly contradicting a Constitutional amendment, so you should have a damn good reason to look at a Constitutional amendment and say "We're changing this"
Bottom line is, we have not given any reason to believe this abridging of our freedom of speech is necessary, as there just isn't any evidence whatsoever of any danger from "violent" video games. Thanks for the offer, but we really don't need this protection. Please feel free to use my tax dollars for protection against things like 767 cockpits entering the workplace or 20-foot hurricane storm surge entering the home.
Most of this is culled from a comment Anthony Cumia(of the Opie & Anthony radio team, who also did voice work for GTA:San Andreas and GTA:Liberty City Stories) about the Congressional hearings into the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident a couple of years ago.
Anyway, this politician in Georgia is just trying to boost his chances of winning, but will ultimately fail.
Last post: I don't have the time, nor the energy to defend myself in this forum.
Let me summarize my position.
I believe that violent video games (violent in the sense that God of War is violent), along with violent movies, and other mature content, should not be in the hands of children. This is because, the younger you are, the more susceptable you are to different ideas (that was the theory behind Hitler Youth, not that I'm comparing video games to nazism), thus a child of eleven of twelve should not read mein kampf, nor should he play God of War.
However, the older one gets, the more fluid the rules. For example, I played Diablo II at the age of fifteen, despite the fact that it's rated mature. Why? Because my parents trusted me. However, not everyone is so fortunate. Not every child has good parents. Thus, when parenting fails, the government steps in (the same principle applies in Child Welfare, though I'm not saying that the same severity that comes with Child Welfare should come with violent video games).
While I acknowledge the fact that this politician is probably saying these things to get votes, I believe in the original idea —of regulating violent video games, and other mature media— not its proponent. However, I'm not calling for a total ban of video games; that is in violation of the first amendment.
That is my opinion. I'm sorry that it came out in such a convoluted manner, mixed in with rebuttals and the like, but there it is, nice and neat. Read it, comment on it, whatever. I'm done. Good night everybody.
The problem isn't the videogames *cough1stamendmentcough* it's the parents not doing a good enough job of watching what their children buy. If the box says M for mature, don't get it for your 6 year old. It's not that hard.
I've heard of people who were falsely made out to be accomplices to child molestation, while they themselves were young minors and lacked the vocabulary (or legal representation) to defend themselves, and these people are now considered sex criminals for life. That's right, it doesn't disappear when they turn eighteen. Propensity for child molestation is considered a lifelong afflicton and therefore the law will give them scrutiny until their dying day.. so let's extend that a bit, say this unlucky bastard goes out in their underwear to get the newspaper or get a UPS package and somebody's kid sees them. Charges get filed, and that unlucky bastard now faces the death penalty if convicted.
Protecting kids is one thing, passing pointless laws especially when it involves invoking a very hasty and irreversible penalty on someone who may actually be totally innocent, is quite another. That's sponsoring random murder by lottery. Hell, I'd castrate a sumbitch just for choosing to look at child porn, I'd chemically castrate anyone who gets a little too into child beauty pageants for that manner (I mean WTF, just go to the petstore and look at puppies they're a thousand times cuter, you're just a perv if you want to see a 3 year old girl tarted up like a french whore). But, I still don't support killing someone who might actually be innocent-- and anyone, and everyone, accused by the justice system of any crime MAY IN FACT BE INNOCENT.
And about the violent videogames-- I actually feel quite passionately on this issue, I have turned against Leiberman and Hillary Clinton because they've taken this same 'facts last, soccermom voters first' attitude. They're following the democratic party's current policy, pleasing no one and pissing people off, very frustrating to me as I'm a person who believes the Republican Agenda equates to pure evil.
Violent videogames are not bad for anyone, anymore than violent films, violent comics, violent lyrics are. Furthermore, violent media cannot harm a person who has a healthy environment and healthy brain chemistry. The killers at Columbine had everything wrong going on with their life, there was violence, I'm pretty sure they were molested, they had access to weapons and bombmaking materials with no parental supervision whatsoever. Being able to take out their aggressions on Cacodemons and Imps did them more good than harm, it just wasn't enough to stop them from killing people. They were sociopaths, videogames cannot make you a sociopath.
Real-life hurts kids, entertainment doesn't hurt kids. Being over-prescribed on various meds before they hit their 14th birthday is hurting kids, but this blowhard isn't talking about that. Poor funding for schools, and the 'No Child Left Behind Act' which will make our education system on par philosophically and truly with that of Communist China, is harming kids.. but I guess nobody's able to compress that down to a nice tasty soundbyte.
By the way, if they have a porn problem in their video games in Atlanta, well, I suppose I should be making a trip down south very soon.
I also wanted to clarify my point above about people who are accused possibly being innocent; that's pretty obvious, it's kind a core ideal of the U.S justice system. What has to be pointed out is that people who are =determined to be guilty= at some time are constantly being found completely and 100% innocent after years or decades of imprisonment. The thing is they're still alive and able to be freed, if they're lucky. If it takes ten years for an alleged victim to say, develop the vocabulary to determine right and wrong, feel guilty about lying to put some Jew or black guy in jail just because their parents told them to, and reverse their testimony... well too bad, because this political candidate championed a bill that KILLED the person they accused.
There's whores in GUN, although you don't see anything. Meh.
In the Directors Cut edition of Indigo Prophecy there's a sex scene as well.
But that's just about it.
He fails anyway. They're already illegal to sell to minors anyway.
It has nearly destroyed the Lawyer in Florida's carreer speaking this mind control Nazi like speach on stopping people from making choices of their own. I hope it has the same effect for you... Georgia's already messed up enough with out someone going after idiotic things.
The major problem for gamers is that there are so few vocal gamers. Once the media realizes how strong of an opposition they receive just beneath the surface they would likely immediately search for a way to affirm our beliefs that games are not evil and move on to find other ways to shock/scare us. When the Hot Coffee issue arose the media used cheap tactics such as misinformation or just plain omitting the fact that the game was Mature to unify a front of angry and uninformed parents behind them. I remember they had an interview with a mother of an 11 and an 8 year old. They showed her the mod on a laptop they brought with. She said, and I quote,"I would've never bought this for my kids if I knew this is what was in it."...... So carjacking, murder by chainsaw, prostitution, drug use, gang wars and the like are okay but the second it hits fully-clothed consentual sex it breaks the barrier. Throughout the entire story they failed to mention the restrictions and warnings posted in the store or on the game itself.
To move on. Legislation is completely useless. #1. The odds of any regulating actions making it through to laws is slim to none. They can call them evil all they want but it doens't help if they have no proof. #2. Any legislation put in place would be bypassed the same way any other age restriction is. They'll just buy it anyways...
I do believe video games can affect children. As TheDude said, large amounts of violent media at young ages can desensitize children. As well as the fact that large quantities of fast-paced activities, mostly media, often lead to Attention Deficit Disorder ( I think I have this. I fall asleep almost immediately after becoming bored with something). So now we have parents plopping their 'burdenous' children in front of TVs so they can suffer social, learning, and medical disorders later in life. Boom, now you have generations of kids who are dependent on meds to operate even semi-normally. Okay, back to topic.... sorry, I tend to rant a lot.
Finally, to touch on the death penalty. I myself am scared to death of sentencing anyone, even convicted murderers, to death. Just the fact that the ad so casually lops that in with protecting children scares me. So he's opposed to violence and pornography for children but now that they're safe, let's start a mass execution. I wish we could just send them away to an island or something but even thought that's not possible (Madagascar isn't greatly inhabited is it?) we can't solve the prison problem by killing some of the lesser evil criminals. Although I detest them, sex offenders don't deserve the axe. Besides, it's not put out as a way to solve prison problems. It's just put out there. lol, as a final message, who is more violent? The 15 year old who enjoys playing Halo 2 or God of War or Resident Evil with some friends or the man who wants to mass murder criminals?