Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His Mystery Bill
Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His Mystery Bill
February 3, 2009
In an op-ed for today's Deseret News, disbarred Miami attorney Jack Thompson writes about the Utah video game legislation that he has been promising for several weeks.
Here's the bill in Utah: It doesn't define what content is "harmful to minors," so we avoid the phony First Amendment arguments Hollywood loves to make. The bill simply states: If you promise the public you don't sell adult-rated entertainment to kids, then you had better be telling the truth, because if a parent catches you selling this stuff to his or her kids, then you're guilty of fraud under the Truth in Advertising Law.
The Entertainment Software Association bragged this week that it spread $4.2 million around to "lobby" politicians at the federal level, with more spread around to state politicians...
Despite Thompson's assertion, we don't remember the tight-lipped ESA mentioning its lobbying expenditures at all, much less "bragging" about them. The $4.2 million lobbying figure which Thompson refers to was tracked down by Gamasutra via a public records search and subsequently detailed in a recent news report.
Since we've been unable to locate Thompson's measure on the website of the Utah legislature, GamePolitics asked Thompson to identify the bill and its sponsor. He declined, saying only:
I have a sponsor and a bill, and [the video game] industry is in trouble.
Layton Shumway, who pens a video game column for the Deseret News, suggests that HB14 might be the Thompson bill, but that seems unlikely. In a comment to his op-ed, Thompson offers what could be a carefully-worded hint on the future of the mysterious bill:
I look forward to returning to Utah, possibly this week, to testify for the passage of this bill. I met with state government officials last month in Salt Lake, and there is great enthusiasm for this approach...
Of course, returning to Utah "possibly this week" also means possibly not this week, or possiby not even during the current legislative session.
From Thompson's description, his bill seems aimed at movies as much as video games. Indeed, he cites poor R-rating enforcement by movie theaters but fails to mention the video game industry's significant, FTC-documented progress at stopping M-rated sales to minors.
We note also that Thompson is identified by the Deseret News as "a former practicing attorney," which does not seem to fully convey his permanently disbarred status to readers of the Utah newspaper.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:27pm
ZippyDSMlee: man I got alot of junk and dup files too >< god I need orginization...and no not the knee capping media mafia kind :P
ZippyDSMlee: man I got alot of junk and dup files too >< god I need orginization...and no not the knee capping media mafia kind :P
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:26pm
ZippyDSMlee: replaced :P
ZippyDSMlee: replaced :P
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:23pm
ZippyDSMlee: beemoh:hey its like 60GB porn,400GB anime 100GB games and crap I have took from all my DVDs, I hate waiting on dvds to install stuff..... oh and 40GB of my porn was in the found.000 folder...mostly corrupted.... least I got names of wut needs to be repa
ZippyDSMlee: beemoh:hey its like 60GB porn,400GB anime 100GB games and crap I have took from all my DVDs, I hate waiting on dvds to install stuff..... oh and 40GB of my porn was in the found.000 folder...mostly corrupted.... least I got names of wut needs to be repa
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:18pm
beemoh: @Zip: ...and you'd have to spend all that time re-downloading that porn?
beemoh: @Zip: ...and you'd have to spend all that time re-downloading that porn?
Posted 11/07/09 at 03:34pm
ZippyDSMlee: ggrrrrr......vista lost one of my hard drives and I had a heart attack thinking I lost 1TB of data....
ZippyDSMlee: ggrrrrr......vista lost one of my hard drives and I had a heart attack thinking I lost 1TB of data....
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:58am
JDKJ: Which could be explained by both (a) and (b).
JDKJ: Which could be explained by both (a) and (b).
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:56am
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: You forgot C) the fact that, for some reason, every time he did something that would suggest he shouldn't be in the military, let alone an officer, higher ups ignored it or let it slide.
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: You forgot C) the fact that, for some reason, every time he did something that would suggest he shouldn't be in the military, let alone an officer, higher ups ignored it or let it slide.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:51am
JDKJ: Part of the problem is, I believe, that (a) the Army had a lot of time and money already invested in him and which they were unwilling to simply write-off and (b) an increasing need for the type of skills and services he provided.
JDKJ: Part of the problem is, I believe, that (a) the Army had a lot of time and money already invested in him and which they were unwilling to simply write-off and (b) an increasing need for the type of skills and services he provided.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:48am
JDKJ: And that even if he was begging not to get cut loose, he was apparently a real good candidate for being cut loose, anyway.
JDKJ: And that even if he was begging not to get cut loose, he was apparently a real good candidate for being cut loose, anyway.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:11am
JDKJ: @chada: And while Kennedy once noted that there's usually more than enough blame for everyone to get a slice, the possibility that the Army was unwilling to cut loose someone who was asking to get cut loose could be a factor.
JDKJ: @chada: And while Kennedy once noted that there's usually more than enough blame for everyone to get a slice, the possibility that the Army was unwilling to cut loose someone who was asking to get cut loose could be a factor.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:07am
ZippyDSMlee: *noms on his feet*..nomnomnomnom*droooll* ...wuuutttttt uuu looking at?
ZippyDSMlee: *noms on his feet*..nomnomnomnom*droooll* ...wuuutttttt uuu looking at?
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:05am
JDKJ: I'm no psychologist, but I'm told that crazy people have a tendency to do crazy things.
JDKJ: I'm no psychologist, but I'm told that crazy people have a tendency to do crazy things.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:03am
chadachada321: Whoops, was out of the convo for awhile. I do wonder what type of ammo he used etc, but the real issue is WHY he did it, not HOW
chadachada321: Whoops, was out of the convo for awhile. I do wonder what type of ammo he used etc, but the real issue is WHY he did it, not HOW
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:56am
JDKJ: But if it turns out that they actually did, they'll have Hell to pay.
JDKJ: But if it turns out that they actually did, they'll have Hell to pay.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:45am
JDKJ: And I'd tend to rule out the possibilty of FN Herstal supplying restricted ammunition to someone merely because they're ordering it from a military base.
JDKJ: And I'd tend to rule out the possibilty of FN Herstal supplying restricted ammunition to someone merely because they're ordering it from a military base.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:37am
JDKJ: I know you don't leave your gated community and get around much in dark alleys, so you may be surprised to learn that there's this thing called "the black market" where, if you've got enough money, ain't too much of anything which can't be bought.
JDKJ: I know you don't leave your gated community and get around much in dark alleys, so you may be surprised to learn that there's this thing called "the black market" where, if you've got enough money, ain't too much of anything which can't be bought.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:36am
Austin_Lewis: Or, maybe he or someone else at the base ordered the SS190 from FN Herstal.
Austin_Lewis: Or, maybe he or someone else at the base ordered the SS190 from FN Herstal.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:32am
Austin_Lewis: the hands of private owners. They run about 300 dollars minimum for a box of 50, and boxes of AP 5.7 are extremely scarce, mainly residing in the hands of Class III stores or individuals who for one reason or another got a demo box of it.
Austin_Lewis: the hands of private owners. They run about 300 dollars minimum for a box of 50, and boxes of AP 5.7 are extremely scarce, mainly residing in the hands of Class III stores or individuals who for one reason or another got a demo box of it.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:30am
Austin_Lewis: There are other firearms that fire the 5.7. However, I too would like to know where he got the ammo and what kind was used. Maybe Hasan, planning not to live through this, went out and bought one the boxes of SS190 that are floating around in
Austin_Lewis: There are other firearms that fire the 5.7. However, I too would like to know where he got the ammo and what kind was used. Maybe Hasan, planning not to live through this, went out and bought one the boxes of SS190 that are floating around in
Posted 11/07/09 at 08:44am
JDKJ: And it isn't yet clear what type of ammunition Hasan used. It's strange that he purchased a gun but didn't purchase ammunition for it at the same place and time. Especially because the calibre required is peculiar to the actual gun.
JDKJ: And it isn't yet clear what type of ammunition Hasan used. It's strange that he purchased a gun but didn't purchase ammunition for it at the same place and time. Especially because the calibre required is peculiar to the actual gun.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
"and [the video game] industry is in trouble."
*Yawn* John Bruce has become very very dull. John has been making this statement nearly twice a week for years now and has YET to get the industry in "trouble". I look forward to another John Bruce failure.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
I read that bill and it has nothing to do with video games. It basically is some text changes and clarifications on their current pornography laws.
Of course, the "material harmful to minors" bit might be waht John Bruce is talking about. Unfortunately, the bill does not define harmful to minors. since there is no precedence on that meaning, this bill is unenforcable.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
GASP! Thompson making more out of something than it actually is?! That's preposterous!!
In Bizarro World.
The most absurd thing about Thompson trying to shoehorn M rated games into the obscenity laws, other than the fact that never have any been classified as such, is the fact that M rated games are rated 17 and up. Obscenity laws are pretty much generally 18 and up. Though only a single year this pretty much soldily proves that the ESRB ratings cannot mesh with the laws that John boy misrepresents.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
They can never mesh, period.
First, Fifth, Fourteenth all violated by making them binding.
76-10-1206. Dealing in material harmful to a minor -- Penalties -- Exemptions for
Internet service providers and hosting companies.
(1) A person is guilty of dealing in material harmful to minors when, knowing or
believing that a person is a minor, or having negligently failed to determine the proper age of a minor, the person intentionally:
(a) distributes or offers to distribute, or exhibits or offers to exhibit, to a minor or a
person the actor believes to be a minor, any material harmful to minors;
(b) produces, performs, or directs any performance, before a minor or a person the
actor believes to be a minor, that is harmful to minors; or
(c) participates in any performance, before a minor or a person the actor believes to be
a minor, that is harmful to minors.
Very broad and no explanation what is "material harmful to minors"
The phrase I always hear is "unconstitutionally" vague. Meaning it likely dies on First Amendment grounds...again.
Fail, nothing to see here folks, move along. This thing will be dead in no time.
---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
I can see him running in two directions with this, since the redefinition of 'material harmful to minors' hasn't worked for him.
1) He likes to say that an 'M' rating is an admission by the video game industry that the material is not appropriate for children and they should therefore be legally held to that. Probably wouldn't work, as it's still delegating to a non-government authority (the ESRB) the role of determining what is or isn't suitable speech for minors.
2) Most retailers have a stated policy of not selling M-rated games to unaccompanied minors, so he would make it a crime to have such a policy and not comply with it 100%. May not work because it's compelled speech - you can't force someone to make a statement or to refrain from a statement without a proper reason. It would also have the unusual side effect that many companies would rather drop the M-rated game policy to prevent them from being liable under the statute, making it even more likely that M-rated games will be sold to minors.
"He likes to say that an 'M' rating is an admission by the video game industry that the material is not appropriate for children"
And if this is all he said, he would be absolutely correct. However he fails to understand the difference between inappropriate and harmful. As I have already pointed out, Mattel and other board game manufacturers label games with no small parts as suitable for 7 or 11 and up, but if a 5 year old were to play them then it would not be harmful to them. Additionally, a suggestion by the creator and enforcement by a retailer are not intrinsically linked and attempting to class sales by BestBuy or Wallmart as part of the games industry is utterly flawed.
You are also right about companies not making claims to do more than the law requires rather than fall foul of the statute. In effect, Jack would be stopping companies from preventing sales to minors. How ironic.
I gather that said 100% is exaclty what he is going for.
If a store claims it doens't sell M rated games to minors and has less then 100% enforcement he is claiming it is fraud and wants to extend anti-fraud laws to cover this case.
Given how poorly anti-fraud laws are enforced already I can't imagine this going anywhere. Plus you might have a problem with standings since the ones who are the 'victims' of the fraud are the minors and while parents can bring suit in their names I imagine that would get sticky.
Given you don't get 100% here in the UK where it IS enforced by law, I don't rate his or anyone elses chances.
Meaning he is hoping for a universal prosecution pass. Take an activity that there is no way to stop and you know is happening, make it illegal, and thus have a law that can be applied to anything you want to shut down.
There's just so much here that doesn't make sense. The retailers are the ones that make the sale to whomever they want and are in no way related to the advertisers, who in turn are typically a completely seperate company from both the developers and the publishers. Who exactly is the one who's getting in trouble in this? Not to mention that the ESRB rating system is a voluntary set of guidlines and in no way enforceable by law (same as movie ratings) so what is the determining factor as to what is adult rated entertainment?
Also this is a free speech issue so by leaving out the harmful to minors bit all you did was offer no defense to this as opposed to removing it from the argument.
''It doesn't define what content is "harmful to minors," so we avoid the phony First Amendment arguments Hollywood loves to make. "
Umm.. wait.. it doesnt define what is harmful to minors?. Then surely this bill is worthless? How can it restrict the sale of something, that it doesnt then actually seek to define? Im confused... Surely this is like sabotaging your own bill...
"The bill simply states: If you promise the public you don't sell adult-rated entertainment to kids, then you had better be telling the truth, because if a parent catches you selling this stuff to his or her kids, then you're guilty of fraud under the Truth in Advertising Law. The Entertainment Software Association bragged this week that it spread $4.2 million around to "lobby" politicians at the federal level, with more spread around to state politicians. ESA wants to make sure entertainment retailers can continue to go behind parents' backs and get at kids. ''
Really? REALLY? well thats interesting.. take a look at this..
http://kotaku.com/5145088/99-percent-of-games-are-advertised-responsibly
here in the uk allegedly 99% of game adverts were found to be totally responsible. Strange that isnt it. Not doing too good a job of selling games to kids are they? (yes i know the UK inst the US, but in dont really see adverts being radically different for games in the US and the UK, tbh most of the time they are the same adverts!)
Oh and lastly.... how does this bill target 'hollywood' when it stops 'them' selling games to kids. Retailers and 'the games industry/the movie industry' are RADICALLY different people. Who exactly does this bill seek to punish?
You cant punish 'the games industry' (whoever that wierdly broad term actually refers to).
The developer had a contract with the publisher.
The publisher has a contract with a retailer.
The retailer makes a contract to customers (wether that be kids or adults).
So surely the only one that can be fined here is the retailer otherwise it makes absolutely no sense. Its like me buying a frying pan from wallmart, then selling it to a friend, who sells it to another friend, who gives it to another friend, who then hits somebody with it, and then sueing the manufacturer of the frying pan who has absolutely no link to the damage caused.
Oh and lets not forget that with games, after all the flaws ive just pointed out in the logic, there isnt actually any 'proof' (i.e. causal link) between any damage (i.e. killings etc) and the game, as there would be between a frying pan and a killing.
Totally stupid As usual.
ps. Does this bill contain the magic that is going to give JT his law license back. Im still 'waiting to see' like he personally told me on this very site when his disbarrment came up. Because apparently he isnt even going to lose his law license... wait scratch that... isnt going to lose his law license for more than 2 weeks.. wait scratch that.. is going to sue the florida bar for this illegal action and regain his law license.. wait scratch that.. is going to shut down the florida bar entirely.. wait scratch that.. is going to go after 'the games industry' itself to ... gain...back... his... license? wait im confused... what was JTs last innane stupid 'mark my words' statement that hasnt come to light?
Jack;
So you don't define what is "harmful to minors?"
In other words your supposed bill is NOT "narrowly tailored" as required by Supreme Court precedent.
Does it emply the "least restrictive means" or regulation, as required by Supreme Court precedent.
Does it only target those works that are, "when taken as a whole", without "redeeming social, literacy, political or artistic value". Remember, the work must be taken as a whole, so a 2 minute scene in Mass Effect isn't enough.
Assuming you plan to make an obscenity agument, do the works in question "appeal to the prurient interest in sex?" Again, when taken as a whole.
Finally, how do you plan to deal with the most obvious argument...your supposed bill is extraordinarily vague. Vagueness has long been the death knell for First Amendment legislation, yet here you seem to be touting the vagueness of your bill as the thing that is going to STOP First Amendment challenges.
That's saying you're going to throw gasoline on a fire and saying its a new way of putting it out.
No wonder you got disbarred...you're totally incompetent.
By the way Jack, you have informed your contacts in Utah that you ARE disbarred correct? You are aware that impersonating an attorney is criminal offense and you are aware that you are under a duty under the law to correct any misunderstanding your contacts have that you ARE an attorney.
In other words, if they THINK you're an attorney and you've "neglected" to inform them otherwise...you're on the hook.
Incompetent, unskilled, and unaware of it!
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=406
As I would say (in a squeaky voice) "His confidence is disproportionate to his abilities!" Jack Thompson responds..."I fell, making me the victor!"
(hopefully there are some Kung Pow fans out here)
GameSnooper
wow...I'm so, I believe the term is "underwhelmed" by his threats. After years of him telling everyone who will listen that "the video game industry is in big trouble" with this case or the next bill he's helping to author, it's lost its effect on me, I don't get angry, I don't laugh, well not as hard, I simply have stopped caring about him and his imaginary windmills he tilts at day in and day out.
I predict, that IF this bill gets anywhere (no sponsor = no proof), JT will be the only one trying to cause "trouble" for the games industry. He will trot out the whole "M rating" means admission of harfulness, and nobody will listen. At that point, expect him to lash out at Utah lawmakers for being corrupt- just like the Utah AG and Louisianna.
I love how he says NOTHING when asked about who the sponsor is. Kinda like that NPR interview he got booted from when he was asked which law enforcement agencies he was "working with".
Christian fundamentalists are so cute when they try to act relevant...
Not Christian fundamentalists; agenda-pushing nutjobs twisting Christianity to serve their own ends. JT is to Christianity what the Taliban is to Islam, minus the guns and turbans.
Well, it's nice to see Jack has widened his scope to include movies. He hasn't gone after them really since the Paducah shooting. Still, that makes it even less likely this bill will get anywhere as movies enjoy more protection than games do. Jack may have had a slim chance passing laws just targeting video games. But this one would be slim to none, and Slim just left town.
It wouldn't surprise me if HB14 is indeed the bill Jack is proposing. Jack's been known to hitch his wagon to other people and take sole credit for the efforts of others. It would be par for the course for him here.
Actually, after Columbine, I vaguely remember that he threatened LionsGate with a lawsuit if there were any "copycat violence" from the movie American Psycho, which stars Christian Bale who would go on to play Batman in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight and will play John Connor in the new Terminator movie.
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.
Honeycakes is at it again with trying to tamper with the 1st admendment,I do believe we need to keep bad material away from minors, But yet again, Waste of Utah's Money.
"a former practicing attorney,"
Oh, Please...Doesnt the utah pop, Know he's been disbarred for lying and various other criminals acts like for say...Stalking,Harrassment, Distrubiting Irrelevant materia to the court of law, So on,So on..Blah blah blah, Emotional Rape.
Heres my way to identify him,
"A disbarred Hypocrite,****"
AE: Let's not do that, okay?
Oh, Sorry Andrew.
While on this topic, where the hell does Jack get off accusing anyone of mentally molesting minors? Christianity is one of the most vile, evil things you can impose on a young person!
-If you have "impure thoughts" about sex or anything unholy, you will go to hell.
-If you masturbate, you go to hell.
-If you are gay or have gay thoughs, you go to hell.
-If you don't live in accordance to the bible, God punishes you with eternal torment.
-If you have sex outside of marriage, you go to hell.
-If you look at porn you go to hell.
Raising a child/young adult with these beliefs instilled on them is unspeakably cruel. They believe that unless they are totally in-line with the ways of God, you will be punished forever. That is the very essence of mental molestation. And these Christians have the audaciy to accuse the media of doing that?
Hi there. So, um, where are you getting this from? Many commenters on Thompson articles have asked him to cite his sources, would you be so kind as to do the same for this?
Hi there. Christianity has this thing called "hell". If you are a sinner, then that is where you go. Are you not aware of Christian beliefs that homosexuality, unmarried sex, and promiscuity are sins? Where have you been?
Now that's funny. I happen to know a lesbian that goes to our church, and she is one of the most valued members in our congregation. Then again, I seriously doubt everyone knows about it, but I know I do, and I don't hate on her. Plus, we're Presbyterians, so it's possible we just don't believe what you put up to be sins.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon
So, if it's a sin to be homosexual, then why does she go to church, knowing that there is no way for her to get into heaven???
Because some people believe that God doesn´t care if you are gay, even when the church wants it.
The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com/
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13, Genesis
So, no male/male/female threesomes but nothing in there about a male/female/female threesome....YAY! They're ok by the Bible!!!
That's just an oldy dusty scroll from some Jewish Scriptures, I don't recall Jesus, my lord and savior (who could be described as a Buddhist) saying anything about that.
Some of the above statement is ment to be humorous.
Humor aside, what a book says and what a church teaches are two different things; differetiating them is important when you want to make these sorts of arguments. For example the official Catholic Church teaching on why homosexuality is "wrong" has nothing to do with Leviticus, it's actually based off of their reason for sanctified marriage.
Also, just because a clergy member says or preaches something does not mean it is a true reflection of the churches' beliefs.
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this one. Just go study some theology so you can at least make relevant points about the religion. This is just sad.
Not trying to derail this post, but I would like to ask a counter-question:
Are you not aware of Christian beliefs about salvation, redemption, loving others and forgiveness? People like Thompson make it easy to think that Christianity is some great evil, but that's not the truth. Isn't the truth what we're all looking for here? Not addressing to you in particular, but in general how can people admonish Thompson for painting all gamers as evil and then in turn paint all Christians in that same light? Thompson and Thompson alone are responsible for his actions. Personal responsibility is something that he appears to be avoiding, let us not do the same.
The core beliefs of Christianity had to be altered to make it palatable to most people in the last century or so.
A lot of arguments for racism, such as "the races were never meant to intermingle", are ripped straight from the Torah. Arguments against gays and the right of gays to marry come directly from the bible.
Religion is a double edged sword in our country, the practitioners want their morals codified in law, but most of the morals aren't bad at all; but one of our biggest protections is the separation of church and state. This way atheists and gays cannot be legally oppressed by any religious group.
And yes, I have a venvetta against religion because my father is a fundie, and his Fundamentalism rent our family in two.
The funny part is that guy haven´t responded you. Maybe he lost his faith on you, and doesn´t know how to respond you.
I´m sorry about your family.
The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com/
"This way atheists and gays cannot be legally oppressed by any religious group."
No, the government is doing a fine job of that. I'm sorry but we have enough oppression from the government. You can agree or disagree, but if we denied any race/ethnicity the right to marry people would be up in arms claiming "that's racist!", so I don't see how it's any different.
Kind of off track I know, but eh.
But yeah, christianity is not immoral so much as people abusing it for their own desire for power and wealth that's evil. JT falls right in there. This bill may be proposed, but it's hardly going to be enforced or even interpreted the way JT wants it.
As for the wording of his "disbarrment", either they don't care/want to spin it a certain way, or they are like the rest of the country and have no idea who JT is and haven't been following his mockery of a career
Yeah, but politicians have also religious backgrounds and agendas, so they will use religion to attract people. As soundemon said, they will try to get their beliefs to be made laws, even when the Church is not directly involved.
The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com/
The prohibition wasn't against the intermarriage of races, though that's a common misconception. God's prohibition was against the Jewish people marrying outside their culture. They were surrounded by cultures and societies that practiced polytheism and idolatry and God didn't want His people to be corrupted by those things.
If said person were to convert to Judaism then a marriage could have taken place but only under very rare circumstances did the kosher version happen.
SounDemon sprake: "This way atheists and gays cannot be legally oppressed by any religious group."
California Proposition 8 - funded by the Mormons (from Utah, no less...I know Mormon's here in CA who abhor the prop), backed by fundamentalist "Christians", voted in by other oppressed classes, who just don't seem to get the idea that oppression is more than a racial issue.
Please, don't ever be so naive as to think that the law will protect any group from anything. Vigiliance and persistence against the oppressors is the only way to keep them at bay.
***Homicide-free video gaming since 1972!***
The core beliefs of Christianity get altered EVERY century.
I too am sorry about your family. Still, we are not all the same. Others below have made good points in defense of the faith, so I want to ask you this:
"The core beliefs of Christianity had to be altered to make it palatable to most people in the last century or so." - can you cite a source for this? Last time I checked, Christianity's core beliefs were in the Bible, which hasn't changed. There is a God, God loves us and we have the opportunity to have a positive, loving relationship with God. This is made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus, who saves us from the price of sin - death.
A lot of people over the years have loved quoting John 3:16 but I believe 3:17 holds a much more important message in these times:
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved"
I think a lot of people who call themselves Christians have forgotten about that. As a side note to others, it is my opinion that there were fundamentalists in Jesus' time. They were called Pharisees.
Uh, yeah. The bible states that every human is a sinner, and yet states there are ways to STILL get into heaven. Get back to us when you brush up on some basic theology.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Many Christians think they have the ONLY way to get into heaven or to be moral. These people are also prone to believe they must legislate morality for everyone else.
Why the hell should everyone else have to be forced to live their way?
Sorry to break your perfect 1950's world.
Point out where I said that everyone should have to live to thier standards. No really, please do. I'll be waiting over there if you need me.
All I was doing is pointing out your erroneous claim that people could get into heaven by their own works of morality. That was ALL I was making note of. If you are going to bash them at least have your facts straight when you do.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
So do many (or most) other religions. Your point?
I would like you to explain me in what way are you being repressed if you claim you are a christian. You can´t be repressed in America if you are saying you are a christian, because they are majority in this continent. That´s nonsense.
The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com/
"They believe that unless they are totally in-line with the ways of God, you will be punished forever."
Actually that isn't it at all. Rather the Christian belief is that there is no possible way that you can be in-line with the ways of God on your own, and that you WILL fuck up repeatedly and daily. But through Jesus taking the bullet for you you can be absolved of your past and very many future fuck ups.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Today Utah tomorrow the world!!!!!!
Seriously though everytime I think of Utah I think of SLC Punk. Kinda hard to take the State seriously. Than again look at what they did in Cali. with gay marriage..... Looks like JT found some like minded folks. Let em have Utah. Maybe all the crazies will move there and leave the other 49 alone.
No, you'd probably see a good chunk of the Midwest go. Basically, the middle of the country (the generally conservative part) gets sick of the liberals and decides to split and form their own country. They'd split the East and West Coasts and would control most of the food production with the possible exception of California. The conservative state would begin to look more like England in V for Vendetta while the liberal state would probably start to look like America in Fahrenheit 451 or the UK in Nineteen-Eighty-Four.
That is something akin to how I was raised and not being catholic I did not even have the "out" of being able to confess and have my "sins" wiped away. I cannot claim to be a christian now thanks to that, though I do have the grounding.
Those kind always say it is what is best of the children. I found out the fact they lied about not doing most of things they were trying (and failing) to keep me from doing.. but I digress.
jackie simply does not care, honestly I dont even think he cares about passing this or any bill except that doing so will get him more time in the spotlight, this whole thing (up to and to include the flamings he has gotten here) seems to be nothing more then getting attention for jackie. Oh he can toss out ideas like how thier 1st amendment rights are fake or false (since they do not agree with his and he is god or the spokeman thereof) and how he is going to override them but the gods forbid is anyone threatens jackies civil rights.
The thing I still cannot understand.. ok yes it is Utah not exactly cutting edge in most things but how could any serious group have thier names tied to his? Of course he has been careful to hide his sponsor (or lacks one) but it does make me wonder. If we ignore him he does things to demand attention (spoiled child anyone?) and if you do pay attention to him (watch him or attempt to prevent him from doing damage) he baskes in the attention.
Maybe he does have us right where he wants us (scary huh).
Oversimplification and misrepresentation don't make your arguments stronger, friend. Study some theology before you start making accusations.
Also, I suggest you look into all the good things Christianity does instead of simply (and wrongly) claiming that it's a list of things you can't do.
In the United States, Christianity is the primary motivator for denying gays the right to marry. Fundamentalist Christianity, which is prevalent in the U.S., is one of the biggest threats to liberty that there currently is.
Christianity provides mental comfort, but the comfort comes at a terrible price, namely the glorification of "faith", the definition of which is to believe something with no supporting evidence, and that is a horrible thing to do, especially after the last eight years.
Okay, I'll give you the gay marriage thing. Most Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, so they vote against legalizing it. Whether that's Constitutional is questionable. However, their allowed to believe homosexuality is wrong just as much as you're allowed to believe it's not.
I'd also like to point out that everyone has some sort of faith, even if it doesn't fall into a definite religion. Everyone bases their views and actions upon certain unprovable assumptions about the way the world works. Claiming to be completely logical is foolish.
Finally, you're assuming that Christians have no supporting evidence. Plenty of Christians have plenty of reasoning behind their beliefs, although you would interpret that evidence differently because your underlying assumptions of reality leave no space for a divine being. We could argue this all day, but the fact that we approach the world from two entirely different worldviews means that we'll likely view the same things in very differing lights.
Whenever some one states "gay marriage" I have to ask;
What is Marriage? Not what you think marriage is, but what is marriage?
jer
A union of couples under the deity of their choice?
Thats the basic definition since not all humans are in male/female couplings.
Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com
And not all believe in a deity, so remove that as well.
Basic definition under who's?
There are plenty of people who get married before the state, no religion involved.
My defenition of marriage therefor would be more like :
Two people who want to let those around them know of their intent to spend the rest of their life together, come what may.
Marriage is simply a formal anouncement of said intent, and stating it before all those you love is supposed to make you less inclined to break that union.
No, now your're assuming that they want to spend the rest of their lives together, and 50% of marriages end in divorce anyway. How about we define marriage as "a legal status that allows you to joint-file your tax return"?
Submitted by Baruch_S - February 3, 2009 at 5:30 pm -0500
No, now your're assuming that they want to spend the rest of their lives together, and 50% of marriages end in divorce anyway.
Thats why i used the word supposed.
There will allways be people getting married for all the wrong reasons, and fortunatly these days those marriages can be dissolves fairly easy. Note i say CAN, it really depends on the couple lol
The perks of being married can also be a good reason. Why not tie the knot to get those perks if you have been living together for a good number of years allready :-P
SounDemon
Dead on, very true.
Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com
Jack Thompson is just one of legions of Christians who are trying to impose their "morality" on everyone else.
- They are trying to deny Gays any rights whatsoever.
- They are trying to turn Science class into Sunday school by injecting Creationism into the curriculum. And let's not forget their assault on science through the ages: Heliocentrism, Evolution, cosmology, etc.
- They attempt to impose their beliefs on abortion onto everybody. If you don't like abortion, don't get one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCh2FXzD6R4
I would say that before you start a flaming diatribe against an established religion, you first get a few things straight.
Christianity is the belief that Jesus was the Son of God, and that by dying and resurrecting he freed us from our sins. That's it. That's all Christianity is.
Now, before you try and contradict that point, Christianity has thousands of subsects, ranging from Catholicism to Protestants to Baptist, and those are only some of the big named ones. Mormons and JWs even can be added to that list. All of these groups have different beliefs that make them noticeably different. Some look down on gays, others don't.
I think what you've done is you've taken the words and beliefs of a very vocal minority and lumped everyone else into that. It's like saying all Muslims are Terrorists, all people from SF are homosexuals and/or hippies, and all lawyers from Florida are jackasses. It's a bad step to make, but it's one that happens quite easily, sadly.
Something that would probably do you good is to just have a level headed conversation with a few random Christians. Sure, you may find a few that fit your description of them to a T, but I guarantee you that you'll find many, many more that have beliefs very contrary to what you say.
So, next time, before you go and give a hateful flaming of Christians and their biases, try looking and seeing that you have a fair share as well.
Then why don't the "sensible" Christians do more to keep the zealots & kooks relegated to the fringes? The problem is that the Religious Right "moral majority" is very powerful in American politics. To be so influential requires numbers. Who is keeping the 700 club on the air? Who is keeping Chick Publications in business? Fundamentalist Christianity is big business in the USA.
Perhaps I have bad luck, but the vast majority of devout (regular church goers) Christians I encounter are preachy, moral-eleitists who try to impose their ways on others.
How do you propose we restirct these people? Wouldn't that be illegal, immoral, and unethical?
I would defend their right to their faith any day. It is the place of other Christians to restrict the zealots within their faith. It's not a matter of law.
We can't do anything about them, that's kinda how Christianity split into thousands of factions in the first place. How do you change the mind of a fanatic?
You can't change the fanatic. But they can be ignored as the kooks they truly are. The problem is, they aren't getting ignored enough.
40,000+ different Protestant Christianities and counting
And (still) only 1 Catholic Church
Technically, yes. In reality, no. You're forgetting the split between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churchs over the issue of Rome's supremacy back in the 11th century.
"Perhaps I have bad luck, but the vast majority of devout (regular church goers) Christians I encounter are preachy, moral-eleitists who try to impose their ways on others."
You very likely meet a lot more devout non-preachy christians than you'd think... Devout christians who are NOT preachy, moral elitists who try to impose their views on others often do not speak of their faith in casual conversation or without reason... They go through their daily lives like just any other person and only bring up religion when it comes up. If you do not speak of religion then they most likely won't bring it up. A lot of my family for instance is very devout, but at the same time you could know them for weeks or even months, without ever realizing it. Most likely the only way you would realize how devout they are is if you directly ask them or spend the holidays with them.
That's the difference about Zealots and the the rest of the devout christians... Zealots are A LOT louder where as other christians do not speak unless spoken to... They do not want to force their views on others, or preach to other people, so what reason do they feel they should have to speak as loud as the zealots. Zealots want to preach to everyone, where as most priests only preach to those that want to listen. Not to mention that the media loves the nut cases, and thus give the zealots a lot more attention, while the quieter follows remain quietly in their churches (or at best, small low access channels that feature prayer and mass... regular mass is quiet boring compared to the ranting and raving of a hateful zealot)
So whats it like not having a fucking clue about Christianity?
Am I just making up the following?
http://www.cbn.com/700club/
http://www.chick.com/default.asp
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCh2FXzD6R4
Am I just imagining the attempts to get Creationism into school curriculum?
Is Jack Thompson & the Eagle Forum a figment of my imagination?
Maybe you have no clue that these elements of Christianity exist. Are you seriously implying that these elements don't exist?
Do you believe that these things you cited represent the majority of Christians in the world? If so, you have a lot to learn.
Wow, three websites and a video, that's definitely an accurate representation of Christianity. *eyeroll*
Every group has people who abuse the group as a way to further their personal agendas. These people aren't an accurate representation of the group; they're just the loud and noticable ones that end up on the news. You're being very narrow-minded and unfair by refusing to recognize all the good things Christians do like this or this or this.
Maybe you should step back and look at the religion as a whole and what it is meant to be instead of finding the few manipulative psychos (like JT) and assuming that they're representative of the religion. These people don't represent what the religion actually is or is supposed to be; they're simply using it to further their own agendas. Please, just step back and view the religion as a whole. Learn about what it is supposed to be and what the majority of its people are. You may find that they're actually pretty good people even if you don't agree with them on everything. Right now, your inaccurate tirades against the religion just make your view look small-minded and hateful. Take some time to learn and see what it's really supposed to be.
And on an unrelated note, I don't see what the big deal is with teaching Creationism in schools. We currently have an unbalanced system that only teaches the "scientific" theory of the Big Bang; we shouldn't be forcing belief in that on people any more than we should force Creationism on them. To be fair, we should really just teach all sorts of creation mythology and let the kids pick for themselves.
Quit with the quotes. It's scientific, it's made testable predictions, something that creationism doesn't do.
You should really do your research because the Big Bang not testable. All we know is that everything in the universe is moving away from a point of origin. That data we have suggests that a large explosion blew a dense mass into the pieces that we call the universe, but we have no way to test that, and nobody was around to see it happen. It's not testable or provable unless we can show that it can in fact happen. Until someone can recreate the Big Bang or go back in time and observe the first one, it's just a likely guess based on what little information we can collect.
Furthermore, scientists have absolutely no idea how the hot, dense mass that exploded came to exist. I believe that trust in something unprovable and/or inexplicable is called "faith." Hm, who would have thought that our "logical," "scientific" explanation of the universe would require a leap of faith?
Maybe you should do your own research. Distribution of elements, background radiation all mesh with the big bang. If you think direct observation is the only way to prove something, you have a lot to learn about science. Plus science doesn't prove things. You posit something and try to disprove it.
I'm willing to say "we don't know yet". That doesn't preclude investigation, "goddidit" is a copout and ends investigation, there's no falsifiability there.
ETA:
Let's put this in perspective.
Big Bang Theory: 1916, as a side effect of relativity
Galaxies seen moving away from each other: 1929
Notice the time differential there?
Yes, they mesh with the theory, but they do not prove it. Any scientific theory has to be tried over and over again and observed multiple times to see if the theory is likely correct. Unless we can recreate the Big Bang and measure the results to compare them to our universe, we're simply speculating based on other theories and observations. What we have now is the aftermath of an event that we did not observe. The best we can do is come to likely conclusions, not the iron-clad truth that people make it out to be.
It's deceptive to say that the Big Bang is THE answer when it's based on observations made after an event that we still can't (and probably never will be) able to completely explain. We shouldn't be teacing one faith-based creation method over any other method.
Also, I believe the Big Bang theory was actually a hypothesis until the discover of the moving galaxies seemed to suggest its validity. Before the proof of expanding universes, it was a hypothesis based on some data and countered by a number of other ideas about the existence of the universe. However, that's pointless nitpicking that's irrelevant to the argument.
Finally, "God did it" does not end investigation. If that were true, hundreds of people wouldn't have spend thousands of years trying to understand God and his methods and motivations behind creation. Saying "God did it" doesn't stop people from asking how he did it.
How many times does it have to be said?
SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE THEORIES. IT **DISPROVES** THEM.
All scientific observations are consistent with there being no god. God is unnecessary. That doesn't mean there isn't one (or many), but when millions of observations all point towards something, you tend to give it credence.
Let's go back to something you said a few posts back "Where did that ball of hot gas come from". Let's completely ignore the inaccuracies there since it also talks about the origin of time, space, and matter itself, not a "ball of gas". Something had to make that ball of gas is your hypothesis, correct? Simply because everything has an antecedant cause.
Why do you have that assumption? And more importantly, why does that assumption stop? What's the "first cause" first cause? If an omnipotent, omniscient being came into spontaneous existence, how can a universe, which is infinitely LESS complex not have come into spontaneous existence? If it always existed, how come the universe couldn't have always existed. Simply applying Occam's Razor says there's an infinite number or none. You better have a reason to special case any other finite number.
Yes, but you also cannot teach a theory as indisputable fact. Saying the Big Bang is THE way the universe was created is deceptive. Unless you can disprove the other theories, you have to teach them alongside it.
All scientific observations are consistent with there being no god.
Bull. You interpretations of scientific observations say there is not god because you don't believe in one. You can't prove God unnecessary and more than you can prove him necessary. You're just taking your interpretation and proclaiming it as a fact.
Why do I think the mass had to come from somewhere? Why don't you think it did? Everything else in the universe has a beginning and an end, and everything is amazingly ordered to exist inside that cycle of life and death. Pretty good organization for random chance, isn't it? If I could get my d20 to break the laws of chance like that, I'd have crits on every roll for the rest of my life.
You should also spend a little more time studying theology before you start making assumptions. A divine being does not have to have a beginning. That's one of the perks of being divine; you get to break the rules of the physical universe and be eternally existing without beginning or end. God doesn't have to play by the rules of the universe because he exists apart from the physical universe (which is also why you can't prove or disprove God).
And we should probably just give this up. Greater men than you and I have spend centuries debating this stuff. If you want to get my perspective, I can probably scrounge up some books of Christian philosophy and such (yeah, there's a ton of it around). I'd suggest starting with Abraham Kuyper. Otherwise, we're just sitting here arguing pointlessly back and forth because we have base assumptions that neither of us can prove affecting our views so we see things differently while the constant indenting of replies slowly crushes our wannabe arguments into unreadable little columns.
Theory isn't fact. No shit sherlock. Gravity is a theory. Everything your computer is built on is a theory. Don't undermine what a theory is.
"Divine being does not have a beginning". Special pleading, sorry, that doesn't get any credit in my book. Show necessity or it doesn't exist.
"Pretty good organization for random chance, isn't it? If I could get my d20 to break the laws of chance like that, I'd have crits on every roll for the rest of my life."
Again, you show you don't understand science or math. Let us try an experiment, shall we?
Since you have a d20, I'm going to assume you have a d6. Draw 3 dots in a triangle on a piece of paper. Label one of them 1,2 another 3,4, the last 5,6. Or, if you like, shuffle it, I don't care, pick any assigination you'd like.
Pick a random point anywhere, I don't care, and draw a dot. Roll the die and draw a new dot halfway between that dot and the numbered dot. From the new point, repeat the process, keep repeating.
Random, is it not? If not, why not?
Shall I post the picture you will get without seeing your dice rolls?
ETA:
Chance is also meaningless. You will understand when you understand the answer to the following question:
I have a perfectly fair coin. I toss it and it comes up heads. What are the chances it came up heads?
Special pleading, sorry, that doesn't get any credit in my book. Show necessity or it doesn't exist.
Honestly, it doesn't matter what you think. When you're in the realm of theology, you have to play by the rules of theology. One of the basic assumptions of the nature of divinity is that a divine being is beyond the scope of the natural universe and thus not restricted to its proofs and laws. But, if we want to do this scientifically, don't you have to disprove necessity? Or you can try to prove that God is unnecessary, but since you're coming from a different perspective, I doubt I'll agree with your conclusions.
You can drop the entire dice thing as well. Your example is not anywhere near what I was getting at. Re-reading the statement, I see that I made it based on a number of personal associations that nobody else would likely get. Your line of thought with the awesome picture and a coin toss doesn't really come anywhere near what I was getting at, and the point is largely irrelevant to this discussin anyway.
Really, I think we should just stop this stupid discussion. You don't have enough knowledge of theology and religion to debate points concerning it, and--according to you--I don't have any understanding of math and science whatsoever.
We're both coming at this from opposite starting points. We cannot prove our base assumptions and are simply wasting time trying to prove the other guy wrong when the other guy's view of things is completely different, thus rendering our proofs irrelevant. You go right ahead believing that there is no God; I'll stick with believing there is.
You repeatedly make mistaken assumptions about science and math and what is and isn't possible without a god. It's not irrelevant.
I am assuming the Null Hypothesis, which is the default position without evidence. So either show evidence of god or show necessity, those are all that is acceptable to someone rational.
Seriously, just drop the dice thing. I obviously did not convey the meaning behind it sufficiently because, as I said, it's a personal association. Since I know what I meant and you don't, I think I'm in the better position to judge the relevance. It may be relevant in another context, but in this discussion it just becomes another tangent that doesn't really aid the main discussion, so you should really just let it be and quit trying to make a point about a statement you don't understand.
You're welcome to believe that the null hypothesis disproves god, but I'll continue to disagree with you because my base assumptions differ from yours in a way that makes us interpret the same data in different ways.
I'd also like to point out--yet again--that you really can't legitimately apply the laws of science to a non-scientific area. Using science (which deals with the natural universe) to prove or disprove the supernatural is just as absurd as trying to use Newton's laws of motion to interpret The Grapes of Wrath. You're applying the laws from one area to a completely different area that operates under different rules.
And, as I've said twice now, just drop it. We're obviously going in circles. You tell me I don't know anything about science; I tell you that you don't know anything about religion, and neither of us believes the other because, according to our basic assumptions about the nature of reality, we see ourselves as right. We're also getting crushed by the ever-indenting reply option, and we're quickly going to find our posts impossible to read. Let's just agree that we're both stubborn and have differing views that neither one of us will convince the other of so we can get on with our lives.
Just as a point of order I know of NO church or legit pastor, not even Pat Roberson, who will support Fred Phelps and his demonic cult. Kindly don't lump jerks like him with the rest of us.
As for Jack Chick and his tracts, they're very rarely used these days. Most Christian denominations look to other methods of witnessing to people. Some, like myself, just try to live by the ideals we claim to live by. I'm not perfect at it by a long shot, but I at least make the effort.
So you not only don't know anything about Christianity, you believe an extremist, fundamentalist minority to represent the whole of a wide spread religion? You also are unware that you're about as bad as the said minority?
Is it any different than the whackos who run around saying that the people who walk into markets and blow themselves up represent the whole of Islam?
Posted in the news thread, asking Jack to post the proof. If he quotes the FTC, I'm contacting them in order to verify.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon
No need to wait for John Bruce or the FTC:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/05/secretshop.shtm
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
So let me get this strait, the best company that stopped people from buying the games is the one that made a lot of money selling games, and is pretty wide spread. The second worst company at restricting these sales (at 38%) is going out of business. Just from those two facts alone indicate that it is going to be even harder to buy M rated games next year.
"They didn't have C.U.N.T.F.L.A.P.S?" -- Jack Thompson
Hmmm...
I still fail to understand why our buddy Jack seems to think restricting games with content that is "harmful to minors" is going to really solve.
NEWSFLASH Jack!
Shielding kids from the real world only turns them into mindless, inexperienced adults that don't know how to handle normal everyday things in the real world.
The more you shelter someone, the more of a liability they become when they get backed into a corner and don't know what to do.
We already have enough adults like that; we don't need more.
Also, when it comes down to "truth" in advertising, I find I know extactly what the game is about from the commercial. When the game is named *blank* of War, or *blank* Theft *blank*...I think you can figure out the content from some key words in the title. If you shelter kids from the truth, they will start to think that Resistance is a game about electricity.
Praetorian
"I've been told I'm the resident skeptic, but I wouldn't believe that."
ECA Seattle Chapter
http://www.myspace.com/pree_tawr_ee_uhn
"Mentally molests minors for money"? Jack sure has a fetish for the letter M, doesn't he?
Also, Utah is one of the last hugely religious states left, so it's no small wonder that Jackhole can get his foot in the door after being disbarred so hilariously.
My last name starts with an M. Does this mean I should worry?
Praetorian
"I've been told I'm the resident skeptic, but I wouldn't believe that."
ECA Seattle Chapter
http://www.myspace.com/pree_tawr_ee_uhn
Oooo, the game industry is shaking in their boots Mr. Thompson, you have them running scared now. /extreme sarcasm
I don't see how the industry is in trouble. The retailers are the ones that sell the games. The industry wouldn't take any hits if this passed.
Also, I was under the impression that, like movie ratings, ESRB rating were considered suggestions. How do you legally enforce a suggestion?
Can we all just laugh insanely at this?
Okay, ready? 1........2........3
Bwahahahahahahhaaaaa!!!!
As for the pole, i think it technically will. But in reality won't go anywhere, so i'm really on the middle ground between yes and no.
All that energy wasted if he looked at it from another angle, its not a question of if X is harmful,Y is guided from X by adults regardless and because of this we need to allow the law in this instance to keep X mature content from being directly purchased by Y minors. We do not care if something is rated or not all that matters is that all 17+ rating levels R,M,NC17 and Unrated(but not "not rated") be restricted to purchase by adults only. This will force the MPAA to work harder at rating film which dose us all some good.
Start the argument with this and the law could well change, and because adults have free access and litarily mature content is protected from kids by blocking the direct sale to them they can still get it from library, from friends and family.
Now Renting is a interesting loop hole because renting=library you could stipulate that commercial renting is limited and non profit library based renting is not, also you could well add not rated to the list but I think it would be unneeded.
Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com
Unconstitutional. Violates Fifth Amendment.
Not the point, you have to start a argument for it, then with logic and reason amend the constusion, it can be done but its highly diffcult.
Also I was trying to edit FROM to THREW in "its not a question of if X is harmful,Y is guided from X by adults .................."
Also a question, Minors already have restricted rights why can not this not be added on without a amendment ?
Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com
You are restricting purchase based on a third party rating. That violates due process. There's also the chilling effect by enforcing this rating (at one point Wal-mart wouldn't carry M games, they might not again with this).
It also violates commerce clause, this is regulating interstate commerce, most games aren't created in Utah.
sqlrob
Ah so a amendment would be very needed to over ride all that.
Perhaps a clause to have GOV authorized boards to bear the weight of the sales ban.Sticky or not tis somethings hats going to have to be put into place before something worse happens...
Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com
The government couldn't do it, that would violate First Amendment.
There is only one way an amendment wouldn't be needed. There would have to be a clear and immediate danger shown to media. That's obviously not the case, or there'd be a large increase in crime rates, not the decrease that we've seen as new media became prevalent.
There's no significant danger, therefore no regulation is needed.
sqlrob
They tax us and can take our land if we do not pay, they can most certianly do it............
If enough mvoement built up for it on a fedreal level and sicne it dose not ban the acess to of it to minors it has a better chance of sticking ,still hell has to frost over frist.
Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com
That follows due process and is completely irrelevant to speech.
sqlrob
Give it time as mentalities in government change the whole system of freedoms will be changed to meet the needs of the times.
Its already been so via the patriot act, with the march of modern man to protect people from ideas and words anything has the capability to change.
Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com
Zippy buddy you are being exceptionly coheret, feeling feverish? I have to admit to a small degree of concern, I mean if anyone could understand you... isnt that one of the warning signs of ragnarok/armageddon? ;)
What next, jackie acutally being correct?
Icehawk
I just got up thank you...my brwains just have not kicked in yet...I'm be incoherent again in a minute... I might be having trouble with my blood glucose levels though I don't think there is such a thing as diabetic idiot syndrome :P
PS:you haz PMs in the form mister!! :P
Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com
Will it be proposed?
Thanks to the Traitor John Bruce's and his followers lies, deceit, and misinformation, sure.
Will it pass?
Same as above.
Will it be deemed unconstitutional?
Sure.
If the Truth, The WHOLE Truth, And Nothing But The Truth were told about the Traitor John Bruce, his REAL agenda, and his sociopathic beliefs, would it have gone past that sociopathic hate group the Utah Eagles Forum?
Not a chance.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
That's why I'm surprised at the results of the poll. I have no question that it'll be proposed.
So Jack's try to ban more then games this time??? p_0
Harvard – Far as I can tell, there isn’t a Harvard brain scan study. I’ve been asking Thompson for years to cite this study and the best he’s ever done is namedrop John Murray who is a Kansas State University professor who did a brain scan study in collaboration with the Mind Science Foundation at the University of Texas Sciences Center. The study looked at the effect of TV violence on kids’ brains, not video game violence.
http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/NewsReleases/murray61803.html
“There is a causal link between playing the first-person shooting game in our experiment and brain-activity pattern that are considered as characteristic for aggressive cognitions and affects,” said René Weber, assistant professor of communication and telecommunication at MSU and a researcher on the project. “There is a neurological link and there is a short-term causal relationship.”
http://newsroom.msu.edu/site/indexer/2532/content.htm
http://medicine.indiana.edu/news_releases/archive_02/violent_games02.html
Here’s a newerIndiana University
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/
“The American Psychological Association in 2005 found that teen play of violent video games leads to aggressive behaviors.”
Close, it says a “comprehensive analysis of violent interactive video game research suggests such exposure a.) increases aggressive behavior...” It suggests an increase. Doesn’t say how much of an increase, how much was there in the first place, what is meant by aggressive behaviors, etc. Kind of worthless really and certainly not cause for alarm or worth basing legislation on.
http://www.apa.org/releases/videoviolence05.html
http://www.apa.org/releases/resolutiononvideoviolence.pdf
“Our military appropriately uses violent video games a) to suppress the inhibition to kill of new recruits….”
Nope, sorry. Said John Stossel in his book Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity:
"Self-appointed experts are sometimes so successful in propagating their arguments that the original source gets lost in the confusion..."
"Even the Surgeon General's Office told us, 'The Marines use the game Doom to desensitize recruits.' Where did they learn that? From Grossman. We called the Marines, They said (Doom) is not used to desensitize Marines, They say they used a version of the software to teach eye/hand coordination and teamwork. Period."
http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/288356.html
In police custody, one of them told detectives, "We played GTA by day, and we lived it by night."
Odd. The only place I can find that phrase uttered is this article. It seems you either misquoted, made it up, or it was never reported. Anyway, just because these guys were allegedly imitating some of the things you can do in GTA, doesn’t mean GTA is responsible for their actions.
“Last month anOhio
It’s important to point out that this was Judge Burge’s personal opinion. He’s not qualified (far as I know) to make such a conclusion and it did not prevent him from finding Petric guilty of murdering his parents. Here’s what he prefixed his opinion with:
“…it's my firm belief as a human being - and not as a jurist - that Daniel does suffer from a serious defect of the mind. This Court's opinion is that we don't know enough about these video games.”
http://videos.cleveland.com/plain-dealer/2009/01/halo_video_game_murder_suspect.html
“After Columbine, the 1999 school massacre authored by two teens who… trained on the video game "Doom,"…”
Fans of Doom sure but the idea that they trained on it is absurd and not supported by anything other than your saying so. Needless to say, that’s not good enough.
“In 2008, the FTC conducted stings on movie theatres… In retail stores, the FTC in 2008 found R-rated movies…”
You seem to have conveniently failed to mention how awesome the video game industry is doing compared to the other industries as well as the improvements continues to make in managing the sales of M-rated games to minors.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/05/08/breaking-ftc-study-shows-massive-improvement-video-game-rating-enforcement
“This very day, not a singleU.S.
Not true either. They use 2 forms of age verification. As Gena Feist of Take-Two explained to you:
“First, consumers who purchase M or RP rated games certify that they are at least 17 years of age. Numerous websites use the same method for verifying age in connection with sales of movies and games. Second, we verify age through the use of a credit card number in connection with a transaction. Such transaction based verification is acceptable to both credit card companies and the FTC (see, e.g. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/coppa.shtm).”
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2007/08/31/take-two-warns-jack-thompson-over-manhunt-2
“It doesn't define what content is "harmful to minors," so we avoid the phony First Amendment argumentsHollywood
Uh-huh. If they’re phony, then why do you have to avoid them?
“The bill simply states: If you promise the public you don't sell adult-rated entertainment to kids, then you had better be telling the truth, because if a parent catches you selling this stuff to his or her kids, then you're guilty of fraud under the Truth in Advertising Law.”
Oh, man. So many things potentially wrong here but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and wait until I see the full text of the bill.
“The Entertainment Software Association bragged this week that it spread $4.2 million around to "lobby" politicians at the federal level, with more spread around to state politicians.”
Uh, no it didn’t.
http://www.theesa.com/newsroom/index.asp
Andrew Eisen
Its a shame the comments section over there only allows 200 letters.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
Forward that to the paper as a counterpoint.
yeah definitely, agreed! forward it itd be nice for some1 to actually counter him in public
That same Ohio judge even said that "it wasn't a defense".
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.
"It doesn't define what content is "harmful to minors,"...
That's not something to brag about, moron. It means your bill is worthless. You can't enforce a law that is completely undefined and subjective.
"I have a sponsor and a bill, and [the video game] industry is in trouble."
*mocking voice* Wow I've neeeever heard that before. *roll*
Nothing new, same old bullshit from an old man who can't get over losing. Meanwhile life goes on for me as I try to survive an exam for next week and a reserch paper concerining why video games are not a source of violence. JT is used perfectly to prove my point of the media using video games as a scape goat.
Wanna copy JT?
The Deseret News should ashamed of themselves for wasting both ink and paper on that walking popcorn fart.
That being said, his bill is unconstitutional as already explained above under the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Thompson should just practice what he preached about growing up and getting a life.
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.
.....Really? That's what he's been making a stink about for weeks? A "Truth in advertising" law? That's got to be one of the lamest attempts at gaming regulation ever.
See, they've tried to make it illegal to sell M rated games (or games depicting certain types of content) to minors before, and it was deemed unconstitutional. So now his tactic is to hold stores to their voluntary word that they won't sell to minors without a parent present. But even that isn't going to work, even if it manages to pass! Stores might have a "store policy" against selling to minors, but they don't advertise it as part of their sales pitch.
Again, LAME.
So the bill doesn't define what is harmful to minors? Then subjectivity will shoot through the roof when enforcing it as law. Big mistake overlooking this, Jack.
He also treats M-rated material as completely off limits to kids. M is like the R rating for movies, and yet again he compares it to X-rated porno. Stores should only allow adults to buy M-rated games, but the adult's choice of letting their children play them is their own business, their own house rules. These kinds of bills are wasteful because they are about micromanagement to the extreme.
GameSnooper
There are NO adult games in America just 17+. Adult games are not sold in 99% of stores due to family friendly policies.
I think some PoS "for teh childrunz" bill will be introduced. And when that happens, they will have to pass it or risk not looking like they are protecting the children. Again. Utah will then have to pay $$$ in a recession after failing to defend it.
"...so we avoid the phony First Amendment arguments Hollywood loves to make."
...Is it just me, or does he sound a lot like the villians from the old Scooby Doo cartoons?
"And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for that meddling First Amendment!"
The alleged proposed law is about truth in advertising. They say they don't sell to kids.
First, such a statement doesn't seem legally binding or even legally defined as "advertising." It is incredibly vague. Were Utah to sue say EA or someone else then EA could claim that in that context they meant "kids" to include anyone under the age of 7 or something.
Secondly, in most cases entertainment companies aren't the people selling the product. EA doesn't sell the games (except perhaps on their website), Gamestop and Wal-Mart do. Therefore they could argue that they are advertising the product but another party is the one selling it.
Finally, I would be surprised if this law even surfaces since 90% of everything Jacko says never happens. I'm still waiting for him to start jackandgoliath.com which he said he was going to start back in February of 2006 http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/203965.html
http://www.popularculturegaming.com
Also his threats to the Videogame Industry and saying Adult Material are not really consistant.
M17+ is MATURE CONTENT... NOT ADULT CONTENT!!!!
I know, lets make out own idea about a insane man wanting to bann videogames and us gamers a the 4 Warriors of Light who go on a quest to stop this man from ruining our videogames.
If that a better idea?
I know im late to the game here, but, does Jack really, HONESTLY, think this has a prayer?
Not for nothing, but aside from being badly written and poorly thought out, does it strike no one as foolish to try and push "Morality" legislation when you yourself were disbarred for a lack of Ethics?
Correct me if Im wrong here people, but is anyone else just envsiioning the game industry walking up to a judge, handing him the disbarment argument and saying. "Your honor, aside from all the legal problems this bill has, the man who wrote is has already been disbared for ethics violations. SHould he be allowed to force his morality on others when he's already been found to have none himself?" After which I expect the judge will laugh jack out of the courtroom.
Seriously though, I give jack Less then 0 percent that this bill survivies a court challenge. Hell, i'd be shocked if the industry doesn't kill it in the senate by threatening to run adds telling the public that they support a disbarred attoreny guilty of massiev ethics violations.
Anyone think Im wrong?
Yukimura is still here "Honor, that is what matters, isn't it? " Yukimura Sanada, from Samurai warriors 2
I'm a benefit of the doubt kind of guy so I'll wait until we see the exact text of Thompson's bill. That said, based on his track record, I'm not expecting much.
Andrew Eisen
I can't believe how truely stupid this guy is. First off if he plans to use stores own policies against selling certain games to kids against them, then the stores will simply repeal those policies and therefore MORE of these games will be sold to minors, is that man really that dumb? This law will have the opposite effect. More kids will gets these games because stores aren't going to risk being fined because one employee messed up.
His inability to keep his personal bias ut of politics has already doomed this to failure