• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Banning of Violent Games Ruled Unconstitutional

Somebody :CC this to John Ashcroft. Might as well quell any ideas he has festering in that delirious mind of his.
 
Banning of Violent Games Ruled Unconstitutional

😀

To recover more than $300,000 in legal fees from the city is the icing on the case, especially since the city threatened that we would not only lose, but also pay its legal fees," said Jack Kelleher, executive director of the Amusement and Music Operators Association.

I hope you people in Indiana plan on letting your politicians know that you dislike them completely wasting your tax dollars. 😉



<<I still don't care, unfortunately>>


Well then I guess you, Stalin, and Hitler have something in common.

 


<< Violent Games >>

I like the term "violent games". Brings up images of shrink-wrapped boxes bouncing around on top of people. If a game gets violent on me there will be repercussions!
 
I just got back from the mall, and I was in Babbage's and some kid, probably ~ 10, was begging his mom to buy him Halo, but she refused because it had a mature rating. I felt bad for the kid, because he was saying all his friends had it, and she said no anyway. I think with this rating system intact, there shouldn't be a need for the banning of any games. I'm glad my mom wasn't so strict when I was younger. I played Wolf 3d, Doom 1&2, etc. , and I turned out fine.
 


<< Banning of Violent Games Ruled Unconstitutional >>

I'm always ever so amused at how even the slightest restriction somehow becomes twisted and portrayed as an all-out "ban":

"The law would have required minors to show parental consent before playing violent or sexually explicit video games in public arcades. City officials said research shows a link between children's anti-social or violent behavior and media violence."

I don't see how requiring minors to show parental consent before playing violent or sexually explicit video games constitutes a "ban", nor do I feel the court's decision was consistent with a million other things for which we lawfully and constitutionally require parental consent before minors may participate.

The court's reasoning that there is no evidence of any relationship between media violence and antisocial or violent behavior was a bit of social crusading, albiet opposite the law's advocates. Its the court's job to decide if a law is unconstitutional, not make a value judgement on the social value of public policy. If the court is essentially saying that the law has no basis for existing, then we should strike 1/2 of the laws in the entire country.

Funny, though, how when people agree with corporations and their industry associations, they cheer when the industry "wins" a lawsuit. But, when people disagree with corporations and their industry associations, they demonize them for exercising the same legal rights. Strange.
 
that is sweet. Why wouldn't they want us playing violent video games? I personally happen to like violence in video games.
 
City Attorney Scott Chinn said the expenses were justified because the ban increased parental awareness of the games and raised the issue of government's role in helping parents decide what their children should be exposed to.

"It has simply been incredible how much input and support the city received," Chinn said.

Among the backers is Indianapolis retiree Mary E. Douglas, who said taxpayers foot the bill for many "nonsensible things," but that the ban was a worthwhile goal.

"They shouldn't be allowed to play those games, period," Douglas said of minors.

News flash! Retiree not in favour of newly popular forms of entertainment! This is unprecedented!

Politicians who think up this stuff annoy me. Okay, it's definitely not a big evil ban on all video games, but the idea is the same. I don't like this product and there's no reason to let everyone else decide what they think of it because I know best. Go home to your Monopoly game! (Which as a potential form of gambling, probably has a better chance of ruining one's livelihood than being thrown in jail for going on a shooting spree.)
 
LMFAO what a bunch of fools. Imagine if people like them succeeded and our children were completely shielded from violence until they are 18. Trust me, there would be mass suicides the day these kids flip on CNN on their 18th birthday.

Man i can't wait til my little brother is old enough to play video games. Gonna buy him every violent game on the market just for the hell of it. The whole theory that violent games make people violent is obsurd. Bad parenting is what makes people violent. But, as always, the government is trying to find an easy solution for a problem that would take decades and billions of dollars to fix.
 


<< Great. Too bad books deemed too violent can still be banned. >>



Um, what country do you live in? Name one book that's been banned in the US.
 


<< I still don't care, unfortunately >>



Thanks for your useless input, BustaRhyme! As soon as I saw this thread, I was worried sick that you wouldn't say whether you cared or not. Now I can rest easier knowing you don't.
 


<<

<< Banning of Violent Games Ruled Unconstitutional >>

I'm always ever so amused at how even the slightest restriction somehow becomes twisted and portrayed as an all-out "ban":

"The law would have required minors to show parental consent before playing violent or sexually explicit video games in public arcades. City officials said research shows a link between children's anti-social or violent behavior and media violence."

I don't see how requiring minors to show parental consent before playing violent or sexually explicit video games constitutes a "ban", nor do I feel the court's decision was consistent with a million other things for which we lawfully and constitutionally require parental consent before minors may participate.

The court's reasoning that there is no evidence of any relationship between media violence and antisocial or violent behavior was a bit of social crusading, albiet opposite the law's advocates. Its the court's job to decide if a law is unconstitutional, not make a value judgement on the social value of public policy. If the court is essentially saying that the law has no basis for existing, then we should strike 1/2 of the laws in the entire country.

Funny, though, how when people agree with corporations and their industry associations, they cheer when the industry "wins" a lawsuit. But, when people disagree with corporations and their industry associations, they demonize them for exercising the same legal rights. Strange. >>



Any minors that want violent games...PM me, I'll buy them for you and send them to you.

Heheheh...and I thought this was just for beer.
 


<< The whole theory that violent games make people violent is obsurd. >>

This is a common misrepresentation of the position of the law's advocates. Nobody is saying that violent video games or violence in the media "makes" people violent. Well, maybe that guy from the 700 Club or some religious zealot like that, but no serious psychologist or sociologist is attempting to assert or imply that.

Gratuitous violence void of any context, message, or lesson can desensitize young minds to the plight of the victims of violence and its associated toll on the human condition, it blurs the age-old distinctions and principles which define excusible forms of violence (self-defense or mutally consenting violence such as boxing), it offers a way of acting-out fantasy violence, promoting its acceptance as an avenue of expression, instead of discouraging it.

Nobody needs to be "taught" violence, we exit the womb with all of the rudimentary capabilities, emotions, and tendencies necessary to pick-up a club and beat someone to death with it. Everyone has violent thoughts at one time or another, even very young children will resort to hitting one another to settle differences though nobody has "taught" them to hit. We exit the womb with a natural propensity to hit or to lash-out.

What makes the difference is acceptance of violence as a valid way of channeling frustration, anger, resentment, jealousy, etc., and compassion for another human being. There is a window during development where a child's mind is not mature or sophisticated enough to "process" in an emotionally healthy manner depictions, whether real or fantasy, of certain subject matter that is MEANT for the adult mind. Children are NOT just small adults. There is a huge difference in the way the child mind perceives and rationalizes things.

You'd no more allow your 8 year-old to watch hard-core pornography, than you would allow him to watch the most violent of movies. Of course, if you would, then I think we've stumbled across the problem. I've been around people who think its perfectly "ok" to smoke pot, get drunk, and swear like drunken sailors in front of their 6 year-old. I'd go to a party where drugs and booze were aplenty, and someone's freaking kid would be running around the place, mom or dad would say "its cool". Lots of sick people in the world who should be sterilized.
 


<<

<< Great. Too bad books deemed too violent can still be banned. >>



Um, what country do you live in? Name one book that's been banned in the US. >>



Not the whole US at once perhaps, but in certain schools or even libraries:

"The Most Frequently Banned Books in the 1990s"
This list is taken from the table of contents of Banned in the U.S.A. by Herbert N. Foerstel. It shows the fifty books that were most frequently challenged in schools and public libraries in the United States between 1990 and 1992. Banned in the U.S.A. has more information about the efforts to keep each title out of schools. (Here's the publisher's information on the book.)
The list is reprinted here with permission from the publisher. Most of the books in this list are still copyrighted, and not available on-line at this time. Those that are available have hyperlinks to the text. There may also be links to pages with more information about certain authors.

Impressions Edited by Jack Booth et al.
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
The Witches by Roald Dahl
Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite
Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Blubber by Judy Blume
Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
A Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
Christine by Stephen King
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
A Separate Peace by John Knowles
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
Cujo by Stephen King
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
I Have to Go by Robert Munsch
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
My House by Nikki Giovanni
Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
 


<<

<< The whole theory that violent games make people violent is obsurd. >>

This is a common misrepresentation of the position of the law's advocates. Nobody is saying that violent video games or violence in the media "makes" people violent. Well, maybe that guy from the 700 Club or some religious zealot like that, but no serious psychologist or sociologist is attempting to assert or imply that.

Gratuitous violence void of any context, message, or lesson can desensitize young minds to the plight of the victims of violence and its associated toll on the human condition, it blurs the age-old distinctions and principles which define excusible forms of violence (self-defense or mutally consenting violence such as boxing), it offers a way of acting-out fantasy violence, promoting its acceptance as an avenue of expression, instead of discouraging it.

Nobody needs to be "taught" violence, we exit the womb with all of the rudimentary capabilities, emotions, and tendencies necessary to pick-up a club and beat someone to death with it. Everyone has violent thoughts at one time or another, even very young children will resort to hitting one another to settle differences though nobody has "taught" them to hit. We exit the womb with a natural propensity to hit or to lash-out.

What makes the difference is acceptance of violence as a valid way of channeling frustration, anger, resentment, jealousy, etc., and compassion for another human being. There is a window during development where a child's mind is not mature or sophisticated enough to "process" in an emotionally healthy manner depictions, whether real or fantasy, of certain subject matter that is MEANT for the adult mind. Children are NOT just small adults. There is a huge difference in the way the child mind perceives and rationalizes things.

You'd no more allow your 8 year-old to watch hard-core pornography, than you would allow him to watch the most violent of movies. Of course, if you would, then I think we've stumbled across the problem. I've been around people who think its perfectly "ok" to smoke pot, get drunk, and swear like drunken sailors in front of their 6 year-old. I'd go to a party where drugs and booze were aplenty, and someone's freaking kid would be running around the place, mom or dad would say "its cool". Lots of sick people in the world who should be sterilized. >>



I laughed like crazy as the guy from GTA3 hilariously beat the turbaned taxi driver to death with a baseball bat, stole the cab and then ran over the taxi driver...backed up...ran over him again...backed up...ran over him again...and then sped off as the cops chased him.

...and then blew up 3 cop cars with the rocket launcher.

(PS...I wasn't the one playing...but hilarious nonetheless.)
 


<< I laughed like crazy as the guy from GTA3 hilariously beat the turbaned taxi driver to death with a baseball bat, stole the cab and then ran over the taxi driver...backed up...ran over him again...backed up...ran over him again...and then sped off as the cops chased him. >>

You'll have to try get a rise out of someone else with your comments. I've seen many too many chumps come and go to be impressed. Yawn.
 


<<

<< I laughed like crazy as the guy from GTA3 hilariously beat the turbaned taxi driver to death with a baseball bat, stole the cab and then ran over the taxi driver...backed up...ran over him again...backed up...ran over him again...and then sped off as the cops chased him. >>

You'll have to try get a rise out of someone else with your comments. I've seen many too many chumps come and go to be impressed. Yawn. >>



Hehehe...but it's true. I was just at my bud's place playing this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top