|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jun 28th, 2011 02:46 PM | ||
| LordSappington |
We get our share of douchebaggery every now and then. It's like two-fifths of Austin is hardcore conservative, and two-fifths is hardcore liberal, and they're constantly trying to tip the scale to their side. The other fifth doesn't give a shit. |
|
| Jun 28th, 2011 02:11 PM | ||
| 10,000 Volt Ghost | I wasn't going to guess Austin for sure. | |
| Jun 28th, 2011 01:10 PM | ||
| LordSappington | It was here in Austin; it lasted maybe a day or two before they got bored and stopped, I guess. They really didn't accomplish much more than making a bunch of noise and getting a few local news stations to mention them for a few seconds. | |
| Jun 28th, 2011 08:21 AM | ||
| Dimnos | Where in Texas was that Sappington? I have never seen that. | |
| Jun 28th, 2011 05:48 AM | ||
| Dr. Boogie |
Quote:
|
|
| Jun 28th, 2011 05:10 AM | ||
| LordSappington |
The local store got picketed once several years ago; I think it was either Halo or GTA or something. Mothers kept moving M rated games to the top shelves and spouting nonsense. Such is life in Texas. In the end, I really don't care too much. It doesn't affect me much, and it's not like I can tell other parents how to raise their kids. |
|
| Jun 28th, 2011 05:02 AM | ||
| Dr. Boogie |
Quote:
And they wouldn't picket. Picketing requires effort. They would just stamp their names on the form letter they got from whatever parental watchdog group they signed up for and fire it off to the FCC. |
|
| Jun 28th, 2011 04:57 AM | ||
| Dr. Boogie |
Quote:
In spite of what guys like Leland Lee would have us believe, the reason the law was struck down isn't because the Supreme Court wants 8-year-olds gawking at mutilated corpses in LA Noire. It was struck down because the law called for the state to regulate what content is available to whom. It doesn't matter who they're doing it for; it's still a violation of the 1st Amendment. What's more, law enforcement would have to set aside resources to make sure the law was being enforced. That bit was a sticking point for a similar bill elsewhere years ago because supporters have yet to show a definitive causal link between kids being exposed to violent video games and increases in their aggression/violent behavior. In short, a law that protects people from something harmless is a useless law. Finally, the law, which had no chance at all of passing in the first place, wouldn't have changed anything if it had passed. Supporters would have you believe there's an epidemic of kids sneaking off and buying violent video games, when they're really just getting their parents to buy it for them no problem. The industry has already taken steps to self-regulate, hence the reason we have a rating system and the reason Gamestop, Best Buy, etc cards people who buy M-rated games. The law passing would have only meant that retailers would be legally obligated to ask a parent if they really want their child playing an M-rated game, followed by a "yeah whatever," or "don't tell me how to raise my kids!" If parents are worried about the content of a game, they can always check the back of the box for a rating and detailed information. If they don't buy their kids those games, but still don't want their kids playing a borrowed copy at home, they can put parental codes on their consoles to block mature content. They have more control over what games their kids can play than they do over what music they listen to, what movies they see, or what books they read. Legislation wouldn't do a damn thing. It's just a cheap ploy by lazy politicians hoping to scare up some votes with a little moral panic. As for me, it's not that I think kids are entitled to play every game that comes out. I just want parents to understand that it's not the government's job to keep track of their kids' choice in media. Plus, I don't want the government to have even the slightest foothold in terms of blocking games. The last thing we need is for the government to start creeping towards what they have in Australia. |
|
| Jun 28th, 2011 04:47 AM | ||
| OxBlood |
Quote:
|
|
| Jun 28th, 2011 04:44 AM | ||
| LordSappington |
There's not really any way to win, I guess. If there're no regulation, mothers are going to bitch and moan and picket the game stores again, and people will complain they shouldn't have to be carded to buy a stupid game. In the end, it doesn't affect me, since I don't even get carded at my local Gamestop since they know me :coolguy |
|
| Jun 28th, 2011 04:36 AM | ||
| Phoenix Gamma |
I'd rather have stores do what they're doing now instead of letting the government decide what kids can and can't see. Cause that'd be messed up. Parents gonna parent. The whole ordeal actually cost a big chunk of money (Schwarzenegger said close to $1 Million) so politicians would do well to let things stay as they are now, because right now stores are enforcing the ESRB on their own and kids aren't any more fucked up as they were decades ago. |
|
| Jun 28th, 2011 04:12 AM | ||
| Fathom Zero |
Quote:
It's like saying "Fuck" on cable television. You're completely allowed to, since it's not regulated by the FCC. But all of the programming and such relies on advertising. Piss people off and you won't get paid. It's self-policing. I used to buy unrated DVDs all the time, because it was never against any store's policies. I remember specifically when I got Evil Dead II and Dead Alive when I was 14. |
|
| Jun 28th, 2011 04:09 AM | ||
| LordSappington | So, in general, this means that any kid in California can walk into Gamestop and buy a copy of Splatterhouse? That's... really dumb. While I hate people who insist that violence in video games is a one-way path to going postal in the local clocktower, people who let their kids play whatever they want without guidance are just as bad. | |
| Jun 28th, 2011 03:54 AM | ||
| Chojin |
I don't understand how this is unconstitutional. I thought minors didn't have full rights? Also, aren't they disallowed from renting R-rated movies? This is actually very bad for the industry, because they're now accountable for little kids playing Blood Hell Guys 3 and can't blame idiot clerks anymore. Idiot parents are still fair game, but since they're the ones complaining it makes the conversation more difficult. |
|
| Jun 28th, 2011 01:13 AM | ||
| King Hadas |
Aww yeah, eat that shit Australia/Germany/Venezuela USA! USA! USA! |
|
| Jun 28th, 2011 12:57 AM | ||
| Dr. Boogie | I added a brief summary so people don't have to scan a 92-page court document for the phrase "anal carnage". | |
| Jun 28th, 2011 12:54 AM | ||
| executioneer | sum up? | |
| Jun 28th, 2011 12:36 AM | ||
| Shyandquietguy |
Let the anal carnage commence!! California's law over selling M-rated games to minors is struck down again as unconstitutional, this time by SCOTUS: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf |
|
