Slashdot Mirror
Congress To Consider Age Limits On Violent Games
labrat1123 writes "It looks like Congress is getting ready to revisit the 'Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act.' Cliff Notes version: It would become a federal crime to sell or rent a violent video game to anyone under 18. Entire article available on CNN." Note that this is not a law; it's a bill being readied for reintroduction after its original version was killed last session.
The six sacred words: nothing that is so, is so. Bush isn't a holy christian man, though he spouts 'God bless America' everytime I see him on the idiot-box [tv]. Where are all the devout christians telling him to turn the other cheek?
So on the one hand we have a leader ready to melt brown people for the preservation of oil (i know, more complicated then that). I guess the "real" christians don't want their kids to go get video games to make them do the same so we see this sort of thing.
Don't forget to censor the news.
And who's in charge of the definition of terms on these "violent" video games? Bush? The kids parents? A group of fanatics?
--------
Free your mind.
True, in the united states children are not full blown citizesn with civil rights. But they SHOULD BE. Just because someone has been on this earth for a shorter period of time does not mean they should be denied the rights of every other human being. First there was discrimination based on skin color and gender. Then there was discrimination based on sexual preference. The last thing is discrimination based on age.
Children are PEOPLE. They do not BELONG to their parents, they aren't posessions like a car or a television. Parents have a right to bring up a child as they see fit, I agree. In fact I would go so far as to say parents have a duty to bring up their children as best as they can. However, when the child's human rights are infringed upon that is crossing the line.
Given, that playing video games, violent or not, is not a right in any form, it is still stupid. I mean its one thing if a five year old tries to go to the store to buy GTA 3. It's another thing if a 16 year old guy has an after school job and he wants to buy the newest FPS with his own money. They have every right to buy anything they want.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
You don't have children, do you?
You probably *are* a child, in fact. And by the sounds of it, a pretty lonely one who didnt get enough attention from Ma and Pa. You obviously wish they followed you around 24/7 watching you like a hawk for every single second of every single day until you were 18.
Shut the fuck up.
This bill says if I don't want my child to have a certain game, he cant have it. Some 14 year old zitnecked doofus working the register at Blockbuster cant sell it to him without my consent. It's MY decision, not his, and certainly not yours, so get over yourself.
And did you ever stop to think that getting that new prOmotion has more to do with putting food on the table than it does selfishness, as you'd imply?
Nothing is more aggravating than some self-righteous asshole with no children of his own telling others how to raise theirs.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Arrested: 34 year old parking lot attendant at a plant that makes resistors and diodes that's used in the Sony Plasystation 2 that was played by a 11 year old kid who punched out his little sister. Police say the child was playing an ultra violent video game named Football 2003. The charge: Contributing to the delinquency to a minor.
Shit rolls downhill, dosen't it?
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
By saying "All generalizations are wrong" is in and of itself a generalization. Once again proving my point (assuming (s)he's a Christian) that all you need to score major hypocrite points is to be a Christian!! lol... best post ever, thanks hypocrite.
I believe the US Supreme Court once ruled that interstate commerce can be considered as any exchange of currency within the United States (I'm not sure which case, or what the circumstances of the case are). This is exactly how prohibition of alcohol happened, and how prohibition of most illegal drugs are also handled (marijuana).
Without this Supreme Court ruling, the war on the American public (ie, War on Drugs/Marijuana) would not exist. and laws like the one currently in question would not be "constitutional" (in quotes because the SC has repeadatly been literally insane with constitutional rulings in recent time.
On a personal note, I believe the only real thing protecting our people from mass insanity is the supreme court. Once they are overrun by presidential appointments by insane presidents, we will have nobody else to turn to (see: Eldred v Ashcroft, Bush v Gore, et al )
If im wrong, someone please correct me. I don't have all the details of the case.
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.