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.
Neo_DrKefka: That is correct in an At-Will state you or the employer can part ways at any time. However Florida also has laws on the books about "Wrongful combinations against workers" http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/448.04510/20/2014 - 10:07am
|
james_fudge: he'd die if he couldn't talk about Wii U :)10/20/2014 - 9:16am
|
Michael Chandra: By the way, I am not saying Andrew should stop talking about Wii-U. I find it quite nice. :)10/20/2014 - 8:53am
|
Michael Chandra: 'How dare he ignore my wishes and my advice! I am his boss! I could have ordered him but I should be able to say it's advice rather than ordering him directly!'10/20/2014 - 8:52am
|
Michael Chandra: If GP goes "EZK, do not talk about X publicly for a week, we're preparing a big article on it" and he still tweets about X, they'd have a legitimate reason to be pissed.10/20/2014 - 8:52am
|
Michael Chandra: If GP tells Andrew "we'd kinda prefer it if you stopped talking about Wii-U for 1 week" and he'd tweet about it anyway, firing him for it would be idiotic.10/20/2014 - 8:51am
|
Michael Chandra: Legal right, sure. But that doesn't make it any less pathetic of an excuse.10/20/2014 - 8:50am
|
ZippyDSMlee: You mean right to fire states.10/20/2014 - 8:50am
|
james_fudge: some states have "at will" employee laws10/20/2014 - 7:50am
|
quiknkold: It says in the article that being in florida, you can get fired regardless if its a fireable offence10/20/2014 - 7:19am
|
Michael Chandra: If your employee respectfully disagrees with your advice, that's not a fireable offense. If they ignore your order, THEN you have the right to be pissed.10/20/2014 - 6:49am
|
Michael Chandra: I... Don't get one thing. If you do not want your employee to do X, why do you tell them it's advice or a wish? Give them a damn order.10/20/2014 - 6:48am
|
james_fudge: A leak that had me worried about being swatted by Lizard Squad.10/20/2014 - 6:03am
|
james_fudge: It should be noted that the author leaked the GJP group names online10/20/2014 - 6:03am
|
MechaTama31: I mean, of the groups being bullied here, which of the two would you refer to collectively as "nerds"?10/19/2014 - 11:30pm
|
MechaTama31: But that's the thing, it doesn't sound to me like he is advocating bullying, it sounds like he is accusing the SJWs of bullying the "nerds", who I can only assume refers to the GGers.10/19/2014 - 11:21pm
|
Andrew Eisen: Interesting read. Unfortunately, too vague to form an opinion on but at least now I know what faefrost was talking about in James' editorial.10/19/2014 - 10:39pm
|
Neo_DrKefka: Breaking GameJournoPros organized a blacklist of former Destructoid writer Allistar Pinsof for investigating fraud in IndieGoGo campaign http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/10/gamergate-destructoid-corruption-and-ruined-careers/10/19/2014 - 8:57pm
|
Neo_DrKefka: Only good thing I seen come out of the Biddle incident was the fact a professional fighter offered to give 10k to an anti bullying charity for a round in the ring with Biddle.10/19/2014 - 7:49pm
|
Neo_DrKefka: Even after all the interviews she is still on twitter making fun of people with disabilities (Autism) yet she is a part of the crowd that is on the so called right side of history...10/19/2014 - 7:48pm
|
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
Consumer responsibility is just as important as Corporate responsibility. So, be responsible consumers.
This message got hit by spam filters and thought it was spam.
- Warren Lewis
Consumer responsibility is just as important as Corporate responsibility. So, be responsible consumers.
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