A %@#^$#@ Conservative Activist federal judge says computer games don't deserve First Amendment protection.
and his last name is limbaugh.... grr
and his last name is limbaugh.... grr
An Activist federal judge says computer games don't deserve First Amendment protection.
- Thread starter Nefrodite
- Start date
<< A federal judge says computer games don't deserve First Amendment protection. His decision is wrong, stupid and dangerous. >>
this sums it up
Limbaugh's deliberations were based in part on his review of four games: "Fear Effect," "Doom," "Mortal Kombat" and "Resident Evil" -- though the court opinion misnames two of them as "Mortal Combat" and "Resident of Evil Creek."
i can't even take this seriously due to the fact that they couldn't get the names of the games right.
i can't even take this seriously due to the fact that they couldn't get the names of the games right.
Yet another example of the government making decisions on subjects they know nothing about. Man am I going to be glad when all these idiots are out of office (or off the bench) and people that actually have grown up with technology are taking their places. At least then decisions will be made by people that know what the hell they are talking about.
<< Limbaugh's deliberations were based in part on his review of four games: "Fear Effect," "Doom," "Mortal Kombat" and "Resident Evil" -- though the court opinion misnames two of them as "Mortal Combat" and "Resident of Evil Creek."
i can't even take this seriously due to the fact that they couldn't get the names of the games right. >>
That and these games are so damn old, he might as well have watched videos of Pong, Pac Man, Donkey Kong and Zaxxon and then concluded that all video games promote violence (pong), obesity (Pac Man), cruelty to animals (Donkey Kong) and arson (Zaxxon).
Also, don't miss the fact that Judge Dippy didn't even play the games...he saw some video clips.
<<
<< Limbaugh's deliberations were based in part on his review of four games: "Fear Effect," "Doom," "Mortal Kombat" and "Resident Evil" -- though the court opinion misnames two of them as "Mortal Combat" and "Resident of Evil Creek."
i can't even take this seriously due to the fact that they couldn't get the names of the games right. >>
That and these games are so damn old, he might as well have watched videos of Pong, Pac Man, Donkey Kong and Zaxxon and then concluded that all video games promote violence (pong), obesity (Pac Man), cruelty to animals (Donkey Kong) and arson (Zaxxon).
Also, don't miss the fact that Judge Dippy didn't even play the games...he saw some video clips. >>
yeah, i was gonna throw those points in too. i bet if they actually played the games they would say "f* this" and before you know it the judges would be having mortal kombat tournaments, instead of doing any real work.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
<< Where did you get that he was a conservative judge? The decision sounds much more like something a liberal judge would do. >>
Sorry but no. He was appointed by Ronald Reagan and is, interestingly enough, Rush Limbaugh's uncle.
I see his ruling as a "right church, wrong pew" ruling. I totally disagree with games not being granted First Amendment protection, but what he was trying to do was right. He was trying to uphold a law that states young children cannot buy/rent violent video games without parental permission. If a child cannot go see an R rated movie without his parents permission (even a cartoon R movie in anticipation of the expected response to this), then why should the child be able to play the R rated equivalent of a computer game without the same restriction in place?
In general I agree that ratings need to be placed onto computer games, and these ratings need to be adhered to, just as they are done with movies. As computer games become more and more realistic, this becomes more and more important. However, trying to revoke First Amendment priveledges from computer games is about stupid.
In general I agree that ratings need to be placed onto computer games, and these ratings need to be adhered to, just as they are done with movies. As computer games become more and more realistic, this becomes more and more important. However, trying to revoke First Amendment priveledges from computer games is about stupid.
<< Limbaugh's deliberations were based in part on his review of four games: "Fear Effect," "Doom," "Mortal Kombat" and "Resident Evil" -- though the court opinion misnames two of them as "Mortal Combat" and "Resident of Evil Creek."
i can't even take this seriously due to the fact that they couldn't get the names of the games right. >>
Right. Also, way to get games from a variety of genres. "Gee, since these four games out of thousands don't express any ideas that could be considered free speech, every game must be like that..." Games of the nature he looked at are usually always just "kill this guy", or "beat the crap out of that guy", they don't have much context. Way to go captain dumba$$. Try playing a game like Grim Fandango (if you want to stick with old ones), or some newer RPGs and such.
My point is, Limbaugh's conclusion is extremely narrow minded. Using his logic, you could pick up a couple of romance novels from a supermarket (my mom reads them), read those, and declare that all books are about sex and ban underage people from reading any book. Great logic, moron.
<<
Right. Also, way to get games from a variety of genres. "Gee, since these four games out of thousands don't express any ideas that could be considered free speech, every game must be like that..." Games of the nature he looked at are usually always just "kill this guy", or "beat the crap out of that guy", they don't have much context. Way to go captain dumba$$. Try playing a game like Grim Fandango (if you want to stick with old ones), or some newer RPGs and such.
My point is, Limbaugh's conclusion is extremely narrow minded. Using his logic, you could pick up a couple of romance novels from a supermarket (my mom reads them), read those, and declare that all books are about sex and ban underage people from reading them. Great logic. >>
Don't give them any ideas, there are plenty of books that they need a stupid reason to ban.
<< I see his ruling as a "right church, wrong pew" ruling. I totally disagree with games not being granted First Amendment protection, but what he was trying to do was right. He was trying to uphold a law that states young children cannot buy/rent violent video games without parental permission. If a child cannot go see an R rated movie without his parents permission (even a cartoon R movie in anticipation of the expected response to this), then why should the child be able to play the R rated equivalent of a computer game without the same restriction in place?
In general I agree that ratings need to be placed onto computer games, and these ratings need to be adhered to, just as they are done with movies. As computer games become more and more realistic, this becomes more and more important. However, trying to revoke First Amendment priveledges from computer games is about stupid. >>
video games already have esrb ratings what more do you want? its not your job or anyone elses to parent other peoples kids.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,389
- 8,547
- 126
<< Right. Also, way to get games from a variety of genres. "Gee, since these four games out of thousands don't express any ideas that could be considered free speech, every game must be like that..." Games of the nature he looked at are usually always just "kill this guy", or "beat the crap out of that guy", they don't have much context. Way to go captain dumba$$. Try playing a game like Grim Fandango (if you want to stick with old ones), or some newer RPGs and such. >>
if you look at it it says that they can't buy/rent games rated for 17 plus, not all games. which is already an industry regulation that isn't followed, so they're putting the force of law behind it. the commercial nature of these items makes it difficult to determine whether they're speech or not, afaik monopoly isn't protected by the first amendment.
<< He was trying to uphold a law that states young children cannot buy/rent violent video games without parental permission. If a child cannot go see an R rated movie without his parents permission (even a cartoon R movie in anticipation of the expected response to this), then why should the child be able to play the R rated equivalent of a computer game without the same restriction in place? >>
it isn't against any law for a theatre to let kids into R or NC-17 movies, its a voluntary system
check the first page at mpaa.org, right there in your face it says
<< Voluntary Movie Rating System
>>
that is an entirely different matter than having a judge rule or making laws regarding age segregation of sales of software
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
Hey Nefrodite and the rest of you Libs,
Looks like your boys are jumping on the bandwagon:
A %@#^$#@ Liberal Activist Congressman says computer games don't deserve First Amendment protection.
Looks like your boys are jumping on the bandwagon:
A %@#^$#@ Liberal Activist Congressman says computer games don't deserve First Amendment protection.
<<
<< He was trying to uphold a law that states young children cannot buy/rent violent video games without parental permission. If a child cannot go see an R rated movie without his parents permission (even a cartoon R movie in anticipation of the expected response to this), then why should the child be able to play the R rated equivalent of a computer game without the same restriction in place? >>
it isn't against any law for a theatre to let kids into R or NC-17 movies, its a voluntary system >>
Exactly. In fact it's only a development of the last 10 years or so when lame movie theatres started deciding they were going to "card" people going into 'R' rated films. When it first started happening I actually got into an argument with the manager of the theatre:
She said my 16-year-old friend could not enter the theatre. I asked why and she said "Because people under 17 aren't allowed in R movies."
I said "Is that a law or your own policy?"
She said "It's a law."
I told her she was a liar. I showed her what a nearby R movie poster said: "Under 17 only admitted with parent or guardian." I told her that this was an MPAA SUGGESTION and not a law. I told her that I was my friend's "guardian" for the night, and that if she'd like to call his mother and make sure it was ok, I'd be glad to do have her do so.
I also asked her how it was that he was sold a ticket if he wasn't 17.
She had no comment but said he still wasn't allowed in.
I asked her if she'd like to change her story and admit that it was her own policy, not a law.
She did.
I told her to stop trying to parent other people's children and give me a refund.
She did.
Anyway, this is exactly the problem--punk legislators and/or judges attempting to "proxy parent."
Stores can and have said they wouldn't sell this or that game to someone under 18.
That's the decision a private entity can make.
Parents can make for themselves the decision as to which games/movies/books/etc their children can handle.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
<< She said "It's a law."
I told her she was a liar . . . >>
The proprietor of a theater can impose whatever policies he or she wishes, but as a practical matter you are barking up the wrong tree. If a given theater sets a policy of letting people in, in violation of MPAA guidelines, they face losing distribution from the studios and distributors, to say nothing of opening themselves up to community protests, etc. Your diatribe against the theater manager sounds amazingly juvenile and unnecessarily personal.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter