Judge blocks California video game law

TalkBack 17 of 105:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

You're not paying attention

"You're right, the MPAA guidelines are voluntary.
But laws do exist that prhoibit the sale of X-Rated material to
minors.
Ex: Division 17.1 of Normal Illinois - "No person having custody,
control, supervision of, or employed in any commercial
establishment open to minors shall knowingly sell, rent, or
exhibit harmful material to a minor."
Here, "Harmful materials" = X-Rated. (This is defined there
also.)"

"X" is still not a rating. And a law defined like that would apply
just as well for pornographic video games so no need for
additional laws which just attempt to creep the scope to
anything people don't like.

"I didn't know we weren't talking about pornographic games. Hot
Coffee for GTA. Porn."

"Hot Coffee" was not a part of the game which was accessible to
anyone who didn't go out of their way and modify the game to
play it. Go and find some game which actually has pornographic
material in the playable game which isn't rated AO and then you
have a point. (Not to mention the fact that once the ESRB was
informed of the unplayable material they changed the game's
rating to AO).

"What is flawed is the rating of the games (see my earlier
comment on "doing it right"). I never equated the two rating with
each other."

You're going to need to point out flawed ratings in order to
make such a wonderful blanket statement. Even if you want to
go really, really far out on a limb and claim that an unplayable
part of a game which is only accessible if someone patches the
game caused you some undue strife you're going to need to get
around the fact that the game was already rated M. M, as in you
should be over 17 to play the game. If you take your kids to see
an R rated movie and there is a sex scene more graphical then
you wanted them to see it's your fault. You knew the movie was
for adults, the rating system worked fine, it's the parenting
which utterly failed.

"Before a statement like that should be made, the definition of
the Right must be made. This is on-going."

This is ongoing because we have people like you who think that
just because you don't like it or because we need to "save the
children" that free speech rights need limits. "Congress shall
pass no law" seems to be quite straightforward. There is no
constitionally allowed acceptions to free speech. That would
include yelling "fire", pornography, the plans to make a bomb,
etc. Perhaps someday we'll get a Supreme Court who is less
interested in the court of public opinion and more interested in
what the Constituion actually says.

Posted by: rhavyn   Posted on: 12/22/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• Email Security and Archiving - Clearer in the Cloud Google The time is NOW for businesses and organizations of all sizes to implement ... Download Now