| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (40)

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 2:38PM FrankTheCrank said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is so retahded. Seriously, why are our legislators getting involved in this sort of stuff?

Government needs an overhaul like now.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 2:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They are trying to convince someone to put them out of our misery.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 2:51PM Wonderflex said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Frank - That's where Obama comes in. Get out there and vote.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 3:01PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Obama has said he would support government intervention if self regulation "fails".

If game censorship is a major issue for you, Obama is not your man.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 3:06PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
What a bunch of garbage. That would happen if self-regulation fails, regardless of who's president.

It used to happen with the movie industry before they became self regulated, and the same goes for games. Saying that it would happen if Obama were president and not if a more conservative person, like Clinton or McCain is idiotic, at best.

Take your rhetoric elsewhere, please.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 3:21PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Um, rhetoric? What the hell are you talking about? Its a freaking fact. Its irrelevant that every other candidate would do the same (except maybe ron paul), but his answer of "Obama will fix it" is more rhetoric than my facts ever could be. I just said that if game censorship is a major issue for you, Obama is not your candidate, and thats the truth.

Please take your political fanboyism elsewhere.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 3:28PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I LOL'd @ "Political fanboyism"

I didn't make a push for any candidate, nor did I push against any. You did. Thanks for playing.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 3:33PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, neither did I, Marty. I just pointed out the fallacy of "Obama will fix it".

But I guess thats the price I pay for pointing out that this season's political Jesus Christ isn't the cure all for all our problems.

Please insert coin to play again.

And yes, your political fanboyism is definitely showing. I made no attacks, just a statement of fact. You're the one who chose to interpret it as an attack against your favored candidate (heaven forbid someone say something bad about Obama), and retaliated. I never said who would be a better choice (except for my again factually based "maybe ron paul"), no did I question Obama's ability to lead the nation.

I just pointed out that he's in favor of this kind of legislation. Which he is. Again, how is this rhetoric?
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 3:56PM Shagittarius said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Tell your momma 'bout Obama!
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 4:59PM RyogaVee said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Crono - you said "if self regulation fails"
Self regulation is working fine. so Obama has no need to get involved.
Well, truth be told "IF" self regulation fails, government should step in.
So Obama is still our man.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 5:23PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The sticking point, however, is what constitutes "Failure". Hilary Clinton and many other politicians obviously think that self regulation has already failed (hence all the anti game laws).

I'm against any politician that believes its ok to legally bar or fine someone for consuming protected speech. Additionally, these laws are only targeting video games, while books and movies with similar or worse content are given a free pass. Thats showing a government favoritism to a form of speech over another. So Saw and Hostel will get free rides, but GTA and even Halo become restricted, and legal repercussions follow for those who violate the ban.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 5:49PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So the truth comes out. If you don't like Obama, that's fine - you're entitled to your opinion. But acting like his election to the presidency would undermine the games industry and invoke some sort of government regulation purely by default is bogus, and I will continue to call you on it.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 7:07PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Except I never said that Marty.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 2:47PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
With a falling Dollar, pointless war, and ruined economy all happening at once, I think our representatives have a lot more important things to worry about right now.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 2:50PM Ignatius said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Obviously not though, gotta protect the children while the rest of the country caves in around them.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 3:27PM galfridus73 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
War? There's a war? The economy's in the toilet?

SON, THERE ARE BOOBIES DOING BOOBIE THINGS IN VIDEO GAMES! A few thousand dead servicemen is nothing compared to the searing image of a voluptuous and buxom maiden in the mind of a 13-year-old boy!

As long as one adolescent is exposed to boobies in video movies and games we have a more important war on our hands!

(That was all tongue-in-cheek, of course.)
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 3:37PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
"I think our representatives have a lot more important things to worry about right now."

i know, steroids are just killing sports right now congress needs to spend more time and taxpayer money on pointless hearings that do nothing.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 3:44PM FrankTheCrank said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Here here....agree wholeheartedly with Marty.

The falling dollar, the subprime mortgage fiasco, a potential energy crysis and two wars.

And don't forget...all that DEBT. Made in China, baby!
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 2:49PM Wonderflex said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I guess I'm seriously confused as to what is wrong with prohibiting minors for playing games that aren't rated for them. It would seem to only make sense if you are going to rate a game with an "M for Mature" and your target market is the "Mature" crowd that you would make it a choice of a parent, and only a parent, if somebody under the approved rating is actually mature enough to handle it. Then when some sort of violence issue comes up if they want to blame the game, then they will also have to blame the parent.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 2:56PM vidguy said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Morally, ethically, and legally, prohibiting minors from playing Mature games can be defended. There's not necessarily anything "wrong" with doing so. However, not a single one of these bills has been written in a legal, constitutional way. Each violates a necessary rule of the law, whether by being arbitrary, overly vague, or my limiting the First Amendment rights of legal adults.

The current bills are written so poorly that they are like creating a law that says that African Americans cannot wear red on Thursdays. They are stupid, pointless, and arbitrary bills encouraging arbitrary enforcement.

When a bill gets drafted properly, it will probably be passed and enforced. Until then, judges are going to continue to laugh at how stupid these bills sound in their formation of the law.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 3:04PM vidguy said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
In simpler terms, nothing is wrong with the goal but everything is wrong with the way the bills are written.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 6:37PM ChooChooCharlie said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@vidGuy

So in other words, we should leave Jack Thompson to his work.
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2008 9:03AM sqlrob said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There isn't anything wrong with prohibiting a minor from playing these games. A parent is more than free to do so.

Legally doing it is extremely problematic, and given the lack of demonstrated immediate effect, will never pass constitutional muster.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 2:50PM vidguy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It'd be nice to think that our politicians understood the United States Constitutional and how to draft a bill that didn't violate it, but I've lost hope on that front.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 3:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
if the leader of our country doesn't know it (or doesn't care for it) then why should his cronies and the people under him?
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 5:44PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Mass. is a blue state, btw.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 2:52PM Batzarro The worlds WOrst Detect said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm gonna imagine Grim and Billy's voice in that picture-caption.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 2:55PM Batzarro The worlds WOrst Detect said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's wrong when you only do it to games, and with scant evidence that it's really THAT important. You don't see them pursuing such legislation for other media, such as movies and music and papers and theater.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 3:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
They SHOULD restrict access to M rated games to minors. Then I wouldn't have to listen to the mouthy little shits on Live.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 3:29PM galfridus73 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Ahhh... I see what you did there.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 3:32PM CB said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Like I said in the last post: "It's sad tax-payers' money is going into this when people pushing this know it will fail, only to say in the future "We did something!" come election day."
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 3:53PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
CRUISE CONTROL:

BORING POLITICAL DEBATE IS BORING.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 5:51PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
...and people wonder why our country is so screwed when it comes to politics.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 6:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This could be a good thing...stay with me on this...in our court system, precedent can sway lot of things, the more laws like this that get shot down, the harder it is for new law of the sort to be put into effect, so in essence, knowing that this won't be passed is strengthening the very thing these politician are trying to squash, so I say, go for it.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 8:01PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You know, I don't understand why these Mass. or any state draft a bill like they did in Maryland a few years ago. It added M rated games to a list already in effect for Movies and books... since then they have not done one of these laws (though, I won't be surpised if Maryland does being almost as blue as Mass. is)

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/710/710155p1.html
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2008 9:05AM sqlrob said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That law does a grand total of... absolutely nothing.

Obscene is obscene, regardless of media, and that law just reinforces that. It makes no distinctions, and does not attempt to add violence to the mix.
Reply

Posted: Mar 18th 2008 9:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This kind of thing still scares me, just cause it didn't make it in one state doesn't mean those in another state would be smart enough to shoot it down. It'll just take one of these bills to make it as a law for the idea to become popular across the country.

I foresee California being a place where this could be possible, seeing as they just made homeschooling illegal, it seems constitutional freedom has been forsaken for statewide control.
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2008 9:06AM sqlrob said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's already been shot down in California.
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2008 10:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Obtuse ? The Boston Herald ? I'm not even sure what "obtuse" is supposed to mean in the context of a newspaper, but i'm pretty sure it's meant to be derogatory. All I can say is, you obviously have it confused with the ridiculous Boston Globe (NY Times lite). At least the Boston Herald doesn't take itself seriously like the reliably far left Globe.
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2008 10:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It will just take time to get it right ? It's been found unconstitutional NINE times. NINE. Wake up and smell the coffee Mrs. Bueller. If there were a way to get this to pass constitutional muster, there's a pretty good chance they would have found it.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW