SheShe

Yo! As they say in Philly. Nice column. It's a stretch to see that happen, but who knows? Nobody ever thought we'd have winning professional sports teams....oh, that's right!

Wow! A horrific story! I would have to argue that the defendant is really the victim. To have endured such abuse from those who were allegedly his caretakers is unspeakable. And to blame video games for the young boys behavior is truly laughable. People have retaliated in the past for far less heinous acts before the time of video games. Let's call a spade a spade. Unfortunately, the kid is no doubt pretty twisted after having endured the demented behavior of a very sick stepfather. Can the system save him? It is an uphill challenge. You learn what you live, right?

I think Warner going on SL is a clever strategy to get on the gaming culture radar. Some gamers may be familiar with whom Mark Warner is, but now those who participate in SL or read Joystiq, Gamepolitics, or any other source that covered the event, are definitely going to remember Warner if, indeed, his name comes up for candidacy in 2008. "Isn't he the guy that went onto that game and blah, blah, blah?"

Personally, I think it is a win-win situation. He wins by gaining attention in the gaming world. Gamers win b/c it is tacit approval from a slice of America (i.e. politicians) who generally don't quite get the gaming culture. Gamers are an untapped population that can garner some much needed numbers come election day.

Are you completely missing the point? To pursue this issue at the taxpayers' expense, knowing that historically these laws are appealed and shot down (at taxpayers' expense again, I might add)is a completely useless, frivolous way to spend the public's hard-earned money. C'mon!

And really, doesn't the 1st amendment protect all speech, and not delineate that some speech is better than other speech? Our constitution was hard-won and has stood the test of time. Let's not begin to change it for partisan purposes.

Get out there and vote! That's really how the out-of-touch politicians hear us.

The thing that I find most disconcerting is that the information provided to the lawmakers by Jack Thompson and Rep. Burrell was inaccurate, i.e. on-line games that aren't currently under any laws. Despite that, the said lawmakers voted on the issue without any fact checking. What does that say about them? It is disheartening to think that these elected officials have that kind of power and are disinterested enough to pass a law before doing any research on the issue. For the lawmakers, it is simply about power and will it get me reelected. And certainly, Mardi Gras is as sinful as any video game out there. Where are the laws governing that?