Slashdot Mirror
Jack Thompson's Violent Game Bill Signed Into Law
simoniker writes "Louisiana Democratic Representative Roy Burrell's HB1381 bill, covering violent videogames, has been signed into law by Governor Kathleen Blanco. The law takes effect immediately, the latest in a very long line of video game-related bills specific to one U.S. State. The measure proposed by HB 1381, which was drafted with the help of controversial Florida attorney and anti-game activist Jack Thompson, allows a judge to rule on whether or not a videogame meets established criteria for being inappropriate for minors and be subsequently pulled from store shelves. A person found guilty of selling such a game to a minor would face fines ranging from $100 to $2,000, plus a prison term of up to one year. Needless to say, the ESA will likely be mounting a legal challenge to this bill in the very near future."
Kathleen Blanco should be worried about the coming hurricane season rather than wasting everyone's time with this.
Florida will love have some input on this topic. I lived there for several years, and I remember repeated protests by local ethnic groups after each release of GTA, due to its perceived representation of those groups. It is also GW's brother's state still.
"As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
I see the point of this, if you're going to Wal-Mart or GameStop/EB. But what about online side of retailers, Amazon, GameStop, Wal-Mart, etc. This bill only affects Louisiana, so if you can't find the game on store shelves, you'll be able to find it online.
drafted with the help of controversial Florida attorney and anti-game activist Jack Thompson
Did they even think to do a background check on him?
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
Was a new state law really needed for something like this? Wouldn't it have made sense to simply apply the same rules that currently apply to the distribution of R-rated movies on DVD?
At least this wasn't a federal initiative. If the people of Louisiana have a problem with this law, they can certainly let their government know about it.
(Although, considering all that's happened in the last year, I can't imagine that current local leaders in that state have a very long and rosy political career ahead of them anyway. It's kind of tough to rein in a lame-duck government which is already world-famous for corruption. The people of that state who don't like this law might just have to wait for the next administration to work on getting it reversed.)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
And you worry over the chinese goverment whilst a retard and attention whore fucks with your hobbies.
*Yawn*
Bill gets challeneged in court and dies.
Couldn't we just get the current videogame ratings enforced instead
of the geschtapo tactics?
I know, it's beyond Jack-off's reach to understand such things.
"The reason is that this industry, through the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board), its developers' lobbyist, the ESA (Entertainment Software Association), and the retailers' lobbyist, IEMA (Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association) are involved in ongoing fraudulent conduct in marketing video games that contain adult material to children."
1:) Prove it
2:) If you can't do you as an attorney know what Libel is?
3:) IIRC Libel can be grounds for revocation of your BAR registration.
I think I want to drive to Louisiana and kick this guy in the nuts.
fuck Jack Thompson with a CD-ROM. When will we be rid of this army of lawyers and cops for Jesus? Isn't God a big enough boy to take care of his own business???
Playing violent videogames never made me want to shoot anyone.
Listening to violent music never made me want to stab anybody.
Reading a violent book or watching a violent film never made me want to go out and hurt anyone in any way.
Fearmongering idiots getting ridiculous laws made, on the other hand, would seriously test my limits were I not reasonably confident of this eventually getting struck back down by someone with half a brain.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I like how this generation of parents is teaching this generation of kids to value and defend their freedoms.
http://outcampaign.org/
Jack Thompson may have his head in the wrong place, but he's not as stupid as people make him out to be. While it's a fair bet that the ESA will go after this bill (just like they have in every other state to sign one into law), I wonder if they'll have more of a difficult time with this one. After all, they have one ruling at least to go on (Illinois), one law that's been unchallenged (Maryland), and after the fiasco with his Modest Proposal I doubt Jack would help author something else that was going to be a sure loss.
Just some thoughts.
Alex Jones has seemed to be nutbag, but what he has been preaching seems to be coming to fruition.
Those who wish to control their own lives and move beyond the existence as mere clients and consumers- those people ride
How exactly will they imprison the entire Walmart branch's employees at once? Those poor people already have it bad enough.
Why can't we get a bill that fines Jack Thompson whenever he tries to buy a game.
The government does not need to fill the spot of lazy parenting. If parents are so worried about Mature-rated video games then why aren't they preventing their own kids from getting them? And it's not one parents reponsibility to enforce their beliefs on another parent. I was allowed to play violent video games back when I was 10 or so (Marathon and the sort) but I was only allowed to as long as I understood that a) IT'S JUST A GAME and b) DO NOT EMULATE WHAT YOU SEE IN SAID GAME.
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
Time for the obligatory 'dumbass', 'wtf', and 'JackThompsonisadouche' tags...
An increasingly disturbing trend are these arbitary laws where there is no set standard. The recent decency laws for broadcast Television are very similar. The real goal is to promote a climate of fear and force self regulation. The laws effectively say there's a speed limit but we aren't naming an actual speed the maximum speed will be determined by individual officers. How can you possibly stay legal under those conditions? Say a kid buys a deer hunting game. A judge declares it violent and fines the store inspite of the fact it's perfectly legal for the same boy to go hunt actual deer. It's an arbitary moral standard that punishes anyone that strays into the gray zone. We are being driven back to the "good ole days" of the Hayes Comission when entertainment was afraid of saying or doing anything the least bit off color.
I live in Louisiana ...and there are a hundred things far more important than this shit.The state of education heres is pathetic , NO hasn't recovered from the last hurricane season ..and the new one is already upon us. Crime is off the charts ...and so on.And they waste time on passing a stupid video game law. Blanco needs to get her head checked .
Maybe I don't understand the full ramifications to this bill, but I simply don't see what is wrong with allowing "a **JUDGE** to rule on whether or not a videogame meets established criteria for being inappropriate for minors and be subsequently pulled from store shelves." Isn't that what a judge's job is--to *judge* if x-entity is adhering to pre-established criteria (read laws) and assign an appropriate pentaly? IMHO, this power should absolutely be in the hands of the judge. The REAL QUESTION is, "What are these 'criteria'?" The energy should be placed on establishing these criteria to balance freedom of expression with protection of minors, not on a judge's ability to enforce laws (that's a given).
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
You can put big wings on this pig of a bill but it ain't never gonna fly - unless it gets blown away by the next hurricane.
*sigh* - here come another delay for poor old Duke Nukem Forever!
More stupid laws to wow the values voters. They won't even notice when they are overturned after the elections are over.
The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
The bill's intent is to keep adult-oriented (this criteria to be determined by a judge) games from getting into minor's hands, and fines any store responsible for selling said games to minors. This is not necessarily a bad thing; one of the biggest weaknesses of the ESRB is its lack of real power: it lacks any and all punitive ability. It can assign ratings all it wants, but when it comes down to it, individual store policy determines who can buy any given game. Clearly this has been ineffective in keeping inappropriate games from the hands of minors. We can argue all day long that: "this is the responsibility of the parents, zomg the government is evil, how dare they try to say that killing hookers is bad, zomg," but really the gaming industry lacks any coherent self-regulation and this needs to change.
Unfortunately, this bill is one step in the right direction (fining retailers who sell GTA3 to ten year olds) and three steps in the wrong (absolutely no specification as to what can be considered "inappropriate," granting sole discretion to the judge, and calling for any "inappropriate game" to be pulled from circulation.) The last wrong is the one that concerns me the most: since when does content "not suitable for minors" suddenly translate into "not suitable for sale?" That seems to me a gross overextension of what the bill should be trying to do, which is to keep minors from playing excessively violent or sexual games. It's no secret that idiots like Jack Thompson believe the world would be a better place without video games, period, but it shocks me that any legislature would buy into this. There are plenty of types of media (rape-pornography, for instance) that the courts currently do not have the ability to demand be removed from circulation. I'm supposed to believe that ANY game could be more harmful to society than the simulation of rape? That doesn't make any sense at all.
I've found that America, and Americans are all about finding people to blame.
Blame the governor and Jack Thompson all you want, but in the end, the geeks of Louisiana are the ones who dropped the ball here. Did anybody follow through on those calls to "write your legislature, blah blah"? Does anybody ever? Nah, too much like work. But goddamnit they should know how we feel!
A bunch of smelly non-voting hippies with a complete apathy towards government whining about not being represented.
Boo-hoo..
Don't worry, they'll keep making GTA games as long as there's money in it. You'll be able to buy them, too, so long as you aren't a minor.
And they'll probably keep slipping in little porno mini-games to be "edgy" and "push the envelope" and "fuck everything up by making a joke of the ESRB and prompting the government to take notice and usurp it."
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
This is exactly why the Democrats scare the hell out of me. They signed into a law another "I'm from the government and I know what is best for you" law.
What does this teach kids? It teaches them that to get what they want they need to download utorrent, go to sites like isohunt and learn how to use DAEMON Tools.
If the kid really wants GTA Cop Killa edition he's going to be able to get the game. If it's a little kid it's the parents who buy the game for him anyway, and if it's a bigger kid then after failing to get it from the store one of his friends is going to tell him about the things I mentioned above.
This is yet another law that targets innocent kids. People will say that the point of the law is to protect kids from the games, but it's really to protect the adults from the kids. There wasn't that much anti video game sentiment until after Columbine. This law has the effect of hitting two birds with one stone, it supposedly stops kids from becoming violent, and it gives the cops and excuse to arrest kids on sight for piracy.
The biggest puzzle here is: why are "minors" the ones that grownups are afraid of? I don't know why either but for some reason they are. They keep us locked up in school all day, and the reason I get for that type of thing when I ask is something along the lines of "it makes it so you don't have a bunch of kids running through the streets unsupervised".
Then you have an assortment of other laws along those lines as well. Minors aren't allowed to drive cars, their not allowed to vote. I may sound kind of crazy here, but after reading this article I'm starting to see a pattern.
~= scwizard =~
I can't masturbate because it's a sin, I can't play violent video games because they make me violent, & I can't sleep with the girl next door because her dad owns a shotgun, what the hell am I supposed to do ?
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
I really do. Like Florida...constantly getting federal funds to repair the damage from hurricanes that just keep comming.
On the upside, this is strong selection pressure against people who like to live near violent storms.
Blar.
inappropriate for minors and be subsequently pulled from store shelves
Why does it need to be pulled from shelves? Just make a "do not sell to minors" label on it and if they sell to a minor then they get fined/jail. I have no problem with preventing minors from buying particularly violent bad games themselves. Normally i would say it is against freedom of speech/privacy and what-not, but we are talking about minors. That segment of our population which cannot buy guns, alcohol (some states it is 21 others 18), pornography, etc. So since we do not pull porn magazines from bookstore shelves (even some comic books are hard-core in their porn drawings) why should games be any different. Just label them as such...put them on a really high shelf or locked in a box (though every game store I get to has an EMPTY box for display, and all the games are behind the counter).
Again, my only problem is pulling the games from the shelves...that infringes on *MY* right to view and purchase the game...i am not a minor and should be able to do so. This law actually censers against me.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
That is what 'meter maids' do. As for Sobriety Checkpoints...I think they are the evil product of cowardly turds who fear what they are told to fear.
But you do have a point, except for the fact that morality (which is what this law entails) is NOT part of the government's job.
Blar.
Confessions of a Welfare Queen. Goes into the insanity behind the National Flood Insurance Program...
If I buy an "inappropriate" game in my home state of Missouri and give it to my minor aged (15 tears old) nephew in Louisiana as a gift who goes to jail?
Actually, sarcasm aside, there is nothing like in-your-face real-world examples to help teach these concepts. Kids understand more than you think, but this is especially sweet since it's video games. It hits home, it's not far away distant 60's civil rights, but it'll do as an example to get them involved. Get them to ask questions, ask why this is happening.
You know it's true.
I love the new tagging system.
jackthompsonisadouche, wtf, dumbass
* I have no problem with gays or their marriages. I just believe that children need both male and female influences in their lives.
If I have a child, I just won't freaking give him any money. I have 100% control of everything the child buys.
And if the child finds ways to make a profit without my help. I'd be damn proud of the child, and encourage him to make more money.
Freaking people spoil their children too much.
jackthompsonisadouche is my new favorite /. tag.
Anybody else feel like rocket jumping off this guy's face?
Self-referential Sigs are cool on /. these days...
54
So who is going to go and collect every computer game that has existed and find out which ones are effected by this law?
And is it exicution or intent that counts? IE in nethack you become the 4th rider of the end times and are able to kill anything in sight. But its text bassed. Does that count?
Ascii artist &
Different judges, Different opinions. Too dependent on the indiviual perceptions of the judges.
What a freakin' joke. They're concerned about violent video game legislation while most of the New Orleans population is still homeless? What a backwards ass state that is...
I think you left out the words 'drive' and 'sideways' and the phrase 'with no lubricant' after the word 'CD-ROM.' ;-)
My blog
At least there's actual criteria for determinining harmful content, rather than some vague concept of community standards
I suspect this si still unconstitutional. The first amendment doesn't have an age limit as far as I recall although they might have snuck an age clause somewhere in those 45 words.
If it is unconstitutional, then it's likely Jack Thompson knows this, and this is a pice of tactical manouevering from him. The only reason the ESA would have to challenge this is if they want to sell "harmful" games to minors. If they don't challenge it, the law stands. If they don't challenge it, Jack scores some P.R points.
Not wanting to slog through the bill, can someone confirm the impression I get from the summary...
After a judge rules that a game is not suitable for minors, a store can be fined for carrying it before the judge mad that decision?
This sounds like a clear case of "Not convicting enough criminals? Just make some more!"
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
Even Grand Theft Auto: Hot Coffee? What about some of the Leisure Suit Larry games or the erotic games sold in Japan?
Maybe not. Bill gets challenged in court. Bill gets ruled unconstitutional. Judge issues ruling on bill. Lobbyists now have blueprint for what needs to be changed to make bill good.
Think death penalty. I wouldn't expect a ruling, 'you can't restrict the sale of video games ever, in any way, don't even think about it, ain't gonna happen.' I would expect a ruling, 'this phrase in this section of the bill is too vague in regards to free speech protection and restriction of commerce.'
Then the next version of the bill addresses those specific issues while achieving as much of the original goals as possible. I would consider this type of bill even making it all the way to court a lost battle. Not a lost war, but a lost battle.
The problem isn't Floridians. We know how to get through a hurricane. It is all the immigrants who come down and don't know how, and won't listen until they go through one. And then they bitch and moan when their services are not there the next day.
Hurricanes are a piece of cake to deal with. I'd rather deal with them then earthquakes or tornados.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Quick someone make a game where we can all take out our aggression on Jack Thompson. Maybe some kid will get a copy and act on what he sees.
This law is just common sense. Any decent society should take steps keep adult material out of the hands of minors. They have laws of this sort in Europe and Japan, and it can be seen that crime rates there are much lower than in the US.
I do not see how sensible persons would oppose laws preventing malicious adults from distributing violent or pornographic material to children.
Fucking moron. 0.0531 percent?!?! Shut the fuck up.
Similar laws in other states have been struct down as unconstitutional. The Governor of Louisianna knows this one will be, but preceeded with it anyway for the political gain. She is being irresponsible with the taxpayers money.
I just moved to Lousisiana to start working on a murder simulator aimed at 11-17 year olds. Now I'm ruined!!! Thanks Jack!!!
"Help us, Luke Skywalker, you're our only hope!"
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Think before you post..Do you think everyone really has the option of abandoning everything and moving? We don't like to live near violent storms. You expect everybody to just get up and move whenever there's danger? If a disaster destroyed your home would you rather the governments not spend money to help you?
This is similar to a doctor prescribing drugs to ease the pain rather than fixing what is causing the pain. The pain being kids supposedly being overexposed to adult material. They need to look at what is causing the pain - parenting problems.
Parents need to spend more time with thier kids. Why not institute programs that push for parents to spend more time with kids?
Kids have been found to get hurt by running with scissors.
A new law was passed to put any adult who gives a minor scissors will be sentanced to 5 years of community service.
When the hurricanes happen EVERY YEAR, I think that perhaps the residents should be expected to pick up the tab.
Florida gets awesome weather and the beautiful gulf...with the price of hurricanes (which have been increasing in frequency and strength over the last 15 years). So it seems to me that people who live there enjoy the nice weather...and if a hurricane smashes their house and they didn't/coudn't get insurance...the federal government picks up the tab to fix it for them.
Is this a mistaken assumption?
Blar.
Why is Louisianna dealing with this stupid issue when there are lots more pressing an immediate issues at hand, like gays getting married
I guess the state of Louisiana has nothing better to do than worry about violent video games making killers out of good little boys and girls. Cause everyone knows that it's up to the government to babysit the kids of irresponsible parents. Maybe if the state would spend less time worrying about animated pixels and more time creating good paying jobs, parents wouldn't have to work 765873294293847 hours a day just to put food on the table.
As much of a ramble this may be, I can still speak better than YOUR president.
Just to be contrary about the whole thing, this is pretty far from any kind of free speech issue. And as for freedoms, since when did we get our knickers in a twist over what minors are allowed to buy? Technically, they're not allowed to buy porn, alcohol or see R-rated movies without their parents either, and you don't hear anyone beefing about that.
I see the whole thing as sort of a stupid nonissue, redeemed only by the unbelieveable shitfuckery of Jack Thompson. It is a constant source of amazement to me that someone hasn't disbarred him yet.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Not that it probably makes too much of a difference, but bear with me for just a minute here. I used to work at EB Games (before the gamestop merger, can't say whether or not this is still true). I can't say anything on walmart's policy, but when I was at EB there was a pretty simple policy in place... You don't sell an M rated game to a minor, or you're gone. I know that came from at least as high up as my district manager, who implied that it came from at least as high up as the regional manager, though I can't vouch for other parts of the counrty. Not only was this policy in place, but it was in place about a year before the hot coffee mod.
As much as some folks are right, and we Americans really do need to find someone to blame all the time, while I was at EB I saw some pretty shockingly irresponsible parenting. People would come in wanting to buy GTA: San Andreas for their 13 year old. We would ask whenever someone who looked like a parent was buying it whether they knew what the content was like, if they were buying it for a child, etc. Sursprisingly, only about 4 in 10 parents decided that beating police officers to death with a purple dildo was inappropriate for their 13 year old. Then there were the parents that would come in with little kids, one or two or a handful, sometimes so young they had to reach up to get to the controllers on our display systems, talk to them for a minute at the front of the store, and then walk away and leave the kid there to play. We told the parents they couldn't leave their kids alone in the store when we could, but we were busy, and you can't spend every waking moment looking at the door. I escorted probably 10-15 kids a month to the mall concierge, where their parents were paged. Mostly they were just shopping for clothes or something and thought it'd be a better idea to leave their kid alone with strangers in a mall than risk him being bored, but there were times when they didn't even stay in the mall. I'd be walking out at the end of my shift and see a kid sitting at the concierge's desk from 2-4 hours past. I've given trying to comprehend the thought process of some of these parents and resigned myself to the fact that there probably isn't one.
And every time, they've failed.
Video games aren't going anywhere, or getting any less violent. And anyone who stands in the way is going to get metaphorically trampeled and forgotten. Maybe Mr. Thompson should save himself the ongoing public humiliation and just give it up.
If he really wants to stop kids from shooting and swearing at eachother, maybe he should look into laws for better parenting; because blaming it on video games is getting to be a fairly old scapegoat.
Personnaly I don't really know what where people live and the natural disasters they are prone to has to due with a videogame bill. As far as natural disasters go, just about everywhere has its own type of possible disaster to be dealt with. As far as this gaming bill goes, in my opinion, morality is not specifically the job of government to make rules on, but without moral rules, laws really wouldn't exist. In all honesty, murder is just a question of moral reasoning. If it weren't, every solder that came home from a war would need to be tried for every confirmed kill. The real question comes down to what issues are morally objectable enough for the government to step in and create a law for it. I don't believe games should be one of these issues. Thats like saying people who put their elbows on the table should get a fine and possible jail time. As a parent, I firmly believe parents should step up, learn what the ESRB ratings stand for, research the games your children want, and enforce a restriction on your child to not get a game you do not believe they are mature enough to play. Jack Handey.....er Thompson should not be the one setting the rules for what I beleive my child is mature enough to play. Of course I do have the right to buy the game on behalf of my child, but then they may look at a 5 day waiting period for the purchase of a game. "Want to make sure you're not training for black ops, y'know," says the kindly Best Purchase guy as I fill out the ream of paperwork to buy the latest Splinter Shock game. Of course the problem here stems from people who don't want to be bothered by actually taking the time to be interested in and raise their child. Enough of this rant. Back to your regularly scheduled weather......
Didn't GTA learn you anything better? You gotta go kill him, either with a baseball bat or a submachine gun. Then steal his wallet and use the money to buy a hooker. Kids these days.
Join Tor today!
"People deserve the government they get and get the government they deserve."
And if the people of Louisiana are so convinced that video games are such a menace that they require laws like this, then by $DEITY they deserve their government!
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
I really don't see what the big deal is in making these lazy retail slobs actually ID for stuff that kids have no business buying. As an avid fan of GTA, I can still admit that's it's not a game intended for tykes. On the same note, I like Rum, and I can clearly see that it's not a good thing for kids to buy. So, I'm all for putting teeth into rating systems.
My biggest issue is that these laws don't actually give any teeth to the ESRB, because they don't rely on ESRB ratings... they rely on the mobs of their state.
I mean places get fines if they sell alcohol to people under the age why not for a movie or a video game? Now I am a responsible parent and would not allow my child (which she is older, she is only 4 now) to purchase something not suitible for her. I can't be with my child 24/7 and peer pressure is a real thing (I remember smoking "because its cool" when I was younger even though I knew it was wrong, etc.,) after all its all part of growing up and nobody does the right thing all the time. If my daughter went into a shop and wanted to buy a video game I would not allow her to play because of its content I would be happy to see the shop refuse to sell it to her. This law should stop shops selling an 18 to a 10 year old to just get the sale.
:(
The law may not be perfect but surly it is better than no law at all? If a shop continues to sell an 18 rated game to a 10 year old they should get in trouble for it.
One thing I am not sure about though is if an adult can buy the game for their child? I personally think the parent should be able to decided as it is their responsibility to raise their own child. WHile I cannot recall 18 rated games when i was a child I remember my parents allowing me to watch certain 18 rated movies before I was 18 as they knew I was mature enough to understand the movie and it not upset me, etc. At the end of the day that is what a parent should do. I always respected what my parents said regarding material I was not old enough to legal see. They had no problem with me watching T2 when I was 15 however they didn't let me watch Pulp Fiction because its content was a lot more mature. The problem is I know not every parent is this proactive when it comes to raising their child and they would rather the government do it for them
"The bill's intent is to keep adult-oriented (this criteria to be determined by a judge) games from getting into minor's hands, and fines any store responsible for selling said games to minors. This is not necessarily a bad thing..."
Yes it is necessarily a bad thing. It's not the government's job and it's not an appropriate use of taxpayers' money to perform morality/value judgement/child development enforcement in the private sector. Here's a crazy thought: the Twinkies (R) stores sell to minors are probably way more harmful to said minors than any video game they can buy. Our (U.S. and particularly Louisiana's) health problems stemming from obesity/poor nutrition are way more costly than whatever (are there any?) problems we're having with rampant video game porn od'ing/psychological scrambling experienced by minors. So where's the legislation disallowing unsupervised Twinkie (R) purchases? Won't someone think of the (fat, diabetic, malnourished, undeducated) children? But regulating Twinkie (R) sales just because some children (and/or their parents) can't handle them would be stupid - right?
Disclaimer: I love the taste/texture of Twinkies (R) - yet I stay away from them because I know they're bad for me.
The gaming industry's lobbiests are either non-existant or bush league - if they weren't there's no way this bill would have happened and games would be on the shelves right along with the Twinkies (R).
Why only games? Let's do the same thing for violence shown daily on TV. In the news, in the movies, everywhere.
Seriously, though. I don't see why games were singled out.
To the Honorable Representative Mucketymuck:
As a concerned citizen, voter, taxpayer, consumer, and constituent in your perfect state and district, I respectfully submit that I am concerned with the situation concerning your honorable boot upon my face. I would like to ask of your honorable and distinguished self that you give due consideration to the possibility of not stomping on my face, and perhaps consider the alternate position of only invading my home and imposing the strength of your will and morality upon myself only 75% of the time.
This is what "write your representative" means. And of course unless you write it with a quill pen on parchment take it over on foot and deliver it by hand, your sentiments mean nothing. "E-mail is just too easy" after all, and we all know what easy means: that people might actually state their opinion and get involved in politics. Proof positive that these lawmakers really only interested in who can line their pockets and/or pump their egos while they stand there and wag their fat jowls for symbolic causes like "protecting the children". I should not have to kindly, humbly, and respectfully ask these great honorable legislaters not to be ass-raped by their arrogant power-mongering.
I would like to imagine someone with actual freedom-loving principles could be elected so that I don't have to supplicate to them every time they're steered onto their next moral crusade. Eternal vigilance may be the price of liberty, but some of us are worn out with the 24/7 death watch we're having to keep over it.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
you get first kick. i get the second.
and so on down the line of waiting people....
Hurricanes are a piece of cake to deal with. I'd rather deal with them then earthquakes or tornados.
Here's the funny thing: I, and most people I know who have grown up in California, would much rather deal with earthquakes than hurricanes or tornadoes. We can't imagine why someone would want to stay in a hurricane-prone area. And I'd be willing to be that people in, say, Kansas, would much rather deal with tornadoes than hurricanes or earthquakes.
I think it just comes down to the disaster you grew up with. You know what to expect, you know how to prepare for a typical hurricane/quake/flood/tornado, you know what to do during the disaster, and you know how pick things up afterward. Every once in a while something hits on the level of Katrina or the 1906 San Francisco quake, but for the most part, the locals in any region are comfortable with their area's disasters -- and often freaked out totally by the disasters that hit other areas.
But goddamnit they should know how we feel!
Considering that most geeks merely mirror the sentiments codified in the highest law of the land which courts have regularly upheld to invalidate laws like this I'd say the politicians know or should have known better than making these laws. Except they're just a PR stunt anyway.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
I thought at least some of you nerdy slashdotters were 1337 hackers and would have done this already, but I see a simple solution to this: -Get into his website. -Using your Third Party Modification skills, "unlock" some hot pr0n onto the front page -Wait for a bottomfeeder even lower than JT to sue him Ready... Go!
My girlfriend is from louisiana, looks like I get to go rip on her now for being from a dumb state.
Perhaps if the gaming industry went unchecked, concerned parents might try to sue the gaming industry for irresponsible marketing, but let's be reasonable they wouldn't stand a chance against the big video game corporations.
I want to kill that mother-fucker.
Seriously, he makes me feel much more violent than any video game ever has. Perhaps we should ban him .
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
...Maybe he has a point. No, really, listen! I wholeheartedly agree that the games should not be pulled from the shelves. That's ridiculous. However, I do support strengthening the laws that keep these games out of the hands of kids. That's why they're rated M....
its only going to encourage piracy, "if you can buy it, download it", not only will it be cheaper it will be a heck of alot easier.
In general, the ESRB rating "Mature" means that the video game industry itself doesn't think a game is appropriate for minors.
This is an absolute waste of time and money, the fact that jack has all this time on his hands is disturbing. Just think about your breathing.
Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
Republicans warn us of the dangers from gay marriage and Democrats warn us of the dangers from video games. I guess if a married gay couple plays Enemy Territory, God will end time. Silly.
Stop the madness! Vote for your favorite 3rd party in Nov.
Why don't we think of some things considered "inappropiate for minors" that has not been pulled off the shelves:
Should all this be pulled off the shelves? NO! Personally, I have no problem with enforcing good identity and age verification practices as with the items listed above and any other items with similar regulations in place; however, "inappropiate for minors" is quite vague, and giving the government the ability to make that judgement and pull it off of store shelves is quite an abuse of power in my opinion. That would thwart sales to adults looking to legitimately purchase this for their own entertainment. I find it disturbing to see children being used as a tool to obtain more power.
I've found that America, and Americans are all about finding people to blame.
Oh yeah? Well as an American I say if so, it's YOUR FAULT!!
But you do have a point, except for the fact that morality (which is what this law entails) is NOT part of the government's job.
I must strongly disagree with your words here (and with the many others who espouse them), though I agree completely in spirit. Enforcing morality is the government's ONLY job. But morality is not synonymous with any particular group's common tastes or traditional values. Morality is about what is good for the everybody, and that is precisely what government's legitimate purpose is: to look out for the well-being of all of society.
But what is good for the everybody is a very small set of things: liberty and security. Any of the particulars (i.e. watching porn, eating red meat, having long hair, wearing shoes, whatever) may be good or bad for different people in different contexts, but freedom and safety are the two things that are always good for everyone. With those provided, people are free to acquire all the things that are good for them in particular and avoid those which are bad.
Which means that the government's job, as I think you were saying, is to mind it's own business, that business being making sure that other people are minding theirs. It is not the government's job to enforce the tastes or personal values of any people on any other people.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
And I went and wasted all my mod points already! Well said, sir!
The Russian Mafia will mod you down just to see if the Moderate button works.
Excuse me while I re-visit a famous quote by Justice Potter Stewart
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "
"This quote, and the intent behind it, is well known as summarizing the irony and difficulty in trying to define obscenity. For at least fifty years, the Supreme Court has been struggling with defining what speech is "obscene"."
Which is precisly why this bill is so asinine, do we really want our courts clogged with bills like this so the supremes can try and define "violent"?!?!
Aren't there other cases that could use more appropriate attention from our high courts?
- swarms of mindless bots,
- denial of vital service,
- bullying of smaller, weaker opponents,
- kill-or-be-killed struggles with thousands of malwares,
- espionage to steal identities and passwords,
- erasures of files and hard drives,
- deliberate infection of friends and associates,
- re-re-re-booting,
- extortion, and
- eye-candy for its own sake.
could include Windows... Maybe this law and more like it could do some good.A problem is an opportunity http://mrpogson.com
Notice the language is very very vague in the bill? Anyone can have a different interpretation on what is decent. For that reason I imagine Jack Thomposn did this for financial gain as he will plan to open several offices in Louisana and sue every retailer in existance. The lawyers are also politicians in the state senate and their former employers are drooling for something like this.
Its disgusting.
Any bill with no direct interpretation should not even come to the floor yet pass as a law.
Well everyone loses and if I were John Carmack or some manager at Target I would pull all video games off the shelves for fear of lawsuits.
It will be impossible to buy any game online or off now if you live in Lousiana. Again the consumer loses.
http://saveie6.com/
Do children have trouble getting alcohol? They will not have any trouble getting the video games they want. Never underestimate the resourcefulness/ruthlessness of a teenager when they want something bad enough. Is Jack Thompson a cum-guzzling gutter slut? Most definately. Maybe since now he has some lawyer street cred he will STFU, but I doubt it. The world goes on, everyone lives, and no one has the balls to shoot him.
This state is totally insane. It's like banning pictures of marijuana, but allowing you to buy a real joint in any Walmart.
Louisiana has alot of laws that are nice and vague like this: and most of them are never enforced. But next election season you'll hear about blahblah who supported 'the law to keep your children safe from violent video games' or something like that.
For example, we have a law that says sodomy is illegal. Occasionally they get tested: one ex-wife brought her husband to court under said law (for oral sex too, sodomy covers that!). Our judges are just like 'this is bullshit' and it doesn't matter. To answer your question: the judge decides.
From my understanding of Louisiana's civil law system, even if some crazy judge actually did rule in favor, it wouldn't matter in future cases as I don't believe case precedent decides when laws apply in such a system.
And about the year in prison bit...obviously you've never seen a Louisiana prison. Angola State Penitentiary is not somewhere one would want to spend a couple of days, let alone a month.
Then funny thing is laws will not stop or fix parent stupidity (most parents don't care unless you put it in wording that makes it sound bad). The kid who goes into the store with their parent, picks up a box and asks their parent if they can have it, the parent then buys said box without even looking at what the game is. How many kids actually go to the store alone and buy games themselves? The whole thing is silly.
The parents are the problem. People keep fucking each other and getting pregnant, then failing to suck up the consequences of their act and raise the damn kids.
It takes a lot of care and effort and attention to raise happy, healthy kids.
People who aren't willing to put in that effort shouldn't have kids in the first place.
And at that, without a warning or restriction or rating anywhere on or in the book. Or any book for that matter. Better get those off the shelf quickly, who knows how many kids may be at home reading Macbeth right now.
I live here. I'm young, but I see the things going on. We have an entire city not prepared for a hurricane. We have some of the highest rates for AIDS. We have horrible Air Quality. Our Gulf Coast is disappearing. We have some of the highest crime rates. Add to that the horrible qualify of education (even in the nice schools in Baton Rouge) I don't know very many people who like our Mrs. Blanco. I would suggest we dock her pay (hell we'd be just as prepared for the hurricane season) and give the teachers a pay raise. (Last I remember, we were the 2nd to last with pay rates for our teachers) This is a pathetic law, only being signed to make people think that something is actually being done to protect our citizens and children. On top of that, I know for a fact that I'll be able to walk into the local Game store and buy myself an M rated game I choose.
lol @ America.
Come buy your games at Wal-mart here in Canada, where we still understand what human rights are.
You mean the Bill is violent or the video games?
Anyone for a class-action lawsuit against the US Army for "America's Army"? I mean, won't someone think of the children (I mean, not the ones actually getting killed in Iraq ... err, gimme a second to figure this out.)
Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo make their money from games, not from selling consoles at a loss. First, you know they are dumping millions of dollars into the ESA to smash these useless laws... but also you gotta believe, if they get pissed enough they will have private investigators combing through Jack's taxes for the last 20 years and looking for every whore he has hired just to get dirt on him to make the states and Jack look like fools. If I was Jack, I would take my 15 minutes of minor fame and run... cause eventually he is gonna call down the thunder of companies with hundreds of millions of dollars to spare just to bury him. And you know every trailer trash legislator that roped thier feel good love to him will be quickly saying, "Jack who, we just were concerned about the children."
I'm a little confused about the moderation this post is getting. Thank you three for the Insightfuls, but why the Flamebait and Overrated? Someone obviously finds this offensive somehow... but I don't rightly see how. People just modding down because they disagree?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Guess why they keep getting funds?
Hint: Who's the governor of FL
... the state where 2 million people were stupid enough to continue living below sea level in a hurricane zone, complained when they got hit and flooded, and then want to move back to do it all over again.
Yeah - there are some real geniuses coming from this place *rolls eyes*
Libertas in infinitum
Does this affect games which are freely downloadable from Internet in any way? They cannot be found on shop shelves, but they still can be violent. I'd be angry if "violent" freeware games were outlawed.
- Broken horse legs, (and how randy that horse is)
- McFever (Mc Pheever?)
- The Brangelina and Tomkat spawn
- The effects of mentos on diet soda.
- Britney's inability to use a baby seat
- A story on "trunking", the hot fad among hip youngsters, where kids ride around in car trunks
- And a story from an internet security expert who calls a browser "that thing above your webpage"
Where the hell to the well-informed get their news? I actually have either MSNBC or CNN on during my working hours, and hard news only represents about 30% of their programming; everything else is human interest and punditry.Mr. Thompson comes across as a deluded, selfimportant, lawerish, jack-ass of an individual. Granted, the host was intentionally pushing his buttons ("I think it should be legal for convenience stores to sell beer to 10-year olds! Parents will boycott the place and it'll go out of business... let the market sort it out!") but surly Mr. Thompson knew this was going to be an interview with someone whose views were diametrically opposed to his own. Surely he could have at least engaged in a real, 2-way debate?
Thompson got so irked by the free-market ideas, he wouldn't even discuss the concept. He hung up on the interview! What an infantile, childish little busybody! These are the kind of asses that make this kind of law to "protect the children!"
Here's the clip:
http://freetalklive.com/files/thompson.mp3
Part of the Second American Revolution!
There was a violent storm here last spring; I was at work, in a concreat building, in an internal office with no windows, but the public alert siren for a 3 mile radius was mounted to our building, so we all could hear it plain as day...I didnt hear the sirens for 10 minutes, so I thought it was all clear, on my way to the door, a security gaurd infomed me that the siren went quiet because a tornado just ripped it off of the tower outside!
At least a huricain gives some heads up...
I am tired of this mindless garbage. Wacko Jacko clearly fed Kathleen Blanco some of the venom of a blowfish, which if it is of the right kind turns you into a zombie, which is in fact the origin of the zombie legend. But that is not the point, the point is that Jacko Thompson is an idiot. The only thing worse than the rabid anti-fun lobby is some of the gamers themselves. I'm talking about those nutjobs who say, lay waste to a greater metropolitan area and claim GTA made them do it. No, GTA had nothing to do with it. You played GTA because you had violent tendencies (This is an isolated example, I am not generalizing those who play such games) then because your parents are total idiots they didn't notice that you had, say, a assault weapon in your room, so then they are sure they aren't at fault because hey, it's not like they KNEW that GTA was violent OR that an assault weapon was designed to be, you know, a weapon, so they sue Rockstar, and the moronic judge who was paid about $300 by Jack Thompson, doesn't do the smart thing (Laugh the case out of court) and instead takes them perfectly seriously. The only thing worse is the fact that most Jurors are, with all due respect (None whatsoever) total freaking morons who wouldn't convict a celebrity if he had shot at them, critically wounding 3, in the past 5 minutes. They wouldn't convict him while he was still pointing the weapon at them. So why should they convict some average joe. Frankly, I don't understand the point of even having a judicial system, the media is what really tries people these days, so maybe if we just got a little sense knocked back into us, got ourselves out of the half-brained culture of compensation, and told Jack Thompson to take a hike, the cast the dark ring of deceit, forged by Hillary Clinton when she's fishing for votes, tempered in the dark ichor that the judges of suing video game companies have for blood, and finally wielded by Jack Thompson, allowing him to bypass his own intelligence for evil.... We must cast this ring into the fires of mount doom, and while we're at it, let's push in Wacko Jacko while we're at it.
What does that mean? Does that mean because its bad for a minor, an adult cant buy it on a store shelf?
I should probably RTFA but that caught my eye
We're in trouble. This is a serious problem. Once we go down this road there is no turning back. Well of coruse there is, but not when politics are involved.
Who is the idiot politician that will run on the platform of "I'm going to put back in the hands of our children violent videogames!"
There is NO turning back from this.
It's dead Jim.
"every solder that came home from a war would need to be tried for every confirmed kill."
Death by solder. That's gotta be one for the Darwin Awards.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I think you have the definition of morality mixed up. moral[ity] refers to "principles of right and wrong in behavior." Morality is based on values - social and personal. Legislating morality is certainly none of government's business; it cannot dictate people what to value. So, in saying that "Enforcing morality is the government's ONLY job" you are contradicting yourself.
I do agree that protecting liberty and security are two of the most important functions of a government. This includes protection of citizens against aggression, fraud, theft, etc. This does not include dictating right from wrong, especially when it comes to things like entertainment. Defining and promoting moral behavior is the job of individuals and parents.
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0
The only thing I can figure is that either most of these apparent halfwits are actually underage and worried that they won't be able to buy the next GTA game without telling their parents or that not only do they not have kids, they're so far removed from reality that they think it's a good idea that kids be able to buy whatever they want without having to go through their parents.
Unfortunately, I have the strong suspicion that it's the second reason.
Most of the time I think Jack Thompson is an asshat. He's like the guys in the '80s playing records backwards at different speeds trying to find subliminal satanic messages. I was shocked when I caught myself thinking that he'd finally done something right.
Now I WILL buy an "I Hate Jack Thompson" t-shirt.
Thank you!! You basically summed up everything I have been thinking since people started blaming videogames for their craziness.
I agree that violent people may be drawn to violent games.. but the games do not make people violent!! It is a load of crap. I have a drivers lisence.. does that mean that playing project gotham is going to make me drive 100+ on the freeway? Or in a parking lot at the school across the street from my house? I think not!
The people who think this stuff up are just trying to make themselves look good to the parents of little kids who then forbid videogames in their houses. Not only that, these lawmakers where probably bad at the games anyway, and didnt like the idea of being shown up by kids. Poor sports...
Considering that the US Army has one of these games out, they should get that game
banned from the internet, as the download does not in any way _ensure_ the age of
the recipient.
They're not making people "pull games from shelves" -- they've just stopped greedy Ferenghi from selling things to kids that are inappropriate without the parent's approval.
Little Johnny can still take Mommy down to the store to buy Grand Trunk Postal 3: Carmageddon of the Bimbos ("Now with 30% more volume on the ass slider!")
It's just that Quark can't sneak it to Johnny directly anymore.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I'm thinking of the news/damange numbers from...oh...since 1992.
Blar.
This is a blog of a former U.S. prosecutor who decided defending the constitution was more important work at this point. Very enlightening, and also quite frightening, IMO.
Evil cowardly turds indeed.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Personally, I'm all for people owning firearms, and smoking marijuana. Just please take responsibility for your own actions. Eg., keep your firearms locked up in a safe place, and don't drive while completely baked.
Responsibility... what a concept!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Don't lump all people with children under that standard. There are fucktards who pass laws like this amongst any group.
what the hell is a 'junk character', anyway?
I've found that America, and Americans are all about finding people to blame.
Where as outside America, they just blame the entire U.S..
It does take a "village" to raise children. i.e. If your kids are being brats outside and one of your neighbours tells you about that, your response should not be to scold the neighbour (e.g. "I think I know how to raise my kids" is the wrong answer). Why the government should be involved with this, though, I haven't the slightest idea.
http://outcampaign.org/
TFA makes it sound like this isn't only about selling games to children:
The law is either overreaching, or this is yet another case of inaccurate reporting.
http://outcampaign.org/
I think you missed the point I was making. I understand liberal democracy and agree with it. It is not the government's job to force some people's values on other people. It's the government's job to keep people from forcing their values on each other. It's the government's job to make sure people are safe and free. It does this by enforcing rights and responsibilities on people. But the reason why it enforces rights and responsibilities is because that *is* what's best for the country. You can't just will some good state of affairs into being; you have to attempt to achieve it through some action, and there's a probability of going awry with every action. The point of enforcing rights and responsibilities is to guarantee that overall, better things tend to come about than they otherwise would if you didn't hold people to their duty.
But what I was trying to get across in my original post was that morality _ISN'T_ just some set of common values. That's like saying that reality is just a set of common beliefs. In some lesser sense you could use the words to mean "common values" or "common beliefs", e.g. "the morality/reality of such-and-such culture is ________", in an anthropological, descriptive sense. But the same way that it doesn't make sense to say that what actually is real changes from culture to culture, or that the world may be round here in California but flat in some backwards luddite society in Nebraska, it makes no sense that what is actually moral changes from culture to culture either. What people believe and what people value changes, and those beliefs and values reflect what people THINK is real or moral, but they mustn't be mistaken for what is actually real or actually moral. That's why the most moral thing to do is to live according to your values and let others live according to theirs, and avoid stepping on each other's toes, so to speak. That way everybody gets what they value as best as possible.
Ethics is the study of what is right and what is wrong; the study of morality. Political science just is applied ethics. And actual government is, of course, applied political science. So morality is the goverment's job. But since morality is not just common values, forcing some particular set of common values on people is not the government's job. Back to the original topic: this anti-game legislation is not the government enforcing morality. It's the government enforcing value. It's not the government looking out for people's freedom and safety, protecting them from one another and allowing them to pursue what they value; it's the government helping one group against others, and telling them what they should value. That's not moral. That's not the government's job.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Why can't the government at least stay out of my enjoyment of video games, it seems the more they get involved the less control they really have.
The republicans or the democrats...
is that they kill texans. you can never kill enough texans.
Seems to me that the perfect time for the gov't to get away with passing stupid laws is when people are preoccupied with other more important things. Warn on terror, immigration, etc. Wait until the general pop is too busy dealing with more important shit and then stuff a few dumbass laws through the backdoor, while passing feelgood through the front.
More recently, I've noticed increasing coverage on "internet predators" being caught, coupled with "what are your kids doing online?" which seem to nicely coincide with the gov't violations of privacy and enactment of similar stupid laws.
really the gaming industry lacks any coherent self-regulation and this needs to change.
As a single parent of 12-year-old twins I can tell you that the current system is at least coherent enough to provide me with what I need. My kids probably understand the ratings better than I do, and I'm passingly familiar with them. The categories act as rough guidelines for me to think about in allowing or preventing any particular title, and the kids if anything tend to rule out M-rated games themselves before they get to me.
What more is it that you want? Coherency is that pivotal for you? The ratings are consistent across stores, whether the store policies toe the line or not. If anything the criteria for the different levels are more sensible (from what I see) than ratings for movies, which still carry with them the genetic history of the old Hays/Breen code and its Catholic origins.
As far as coherency goes, there's never going to be an absolutely clear code. Censorship becomes arbitrary at some point. It's the nature of the beast. The movie "The Whale Rider" was a great family film, but it got a PG-13 because of (apparently) some drug-related paraphernalia and a bunch of giggly, pot smoking people in one scene. The plot barely touched on those people, and if anything it redeemed the characters involved by bring them away from their dissolute lives a little bit by the end -- but the good ol' MPAA has its rules, you know. Say a four-letter word beginning with "F" a certain number of times and you get an R, period. 'Cause, you know, 13-year-olds have never heard that one.
ScreenIt.com goes to enormous lengths to catalog the various traits of different movies, to the point where the level of detail is almost laughable -- and it's still hard to be sure what categories they're putting things in and why. What does "bad/disrespectful attitude" mean in a movie about the X-Men? Which behavior is imitative? Would that be coherent, or incoherent, in your book? I'm a little lost in it, usually.
one of the biggest weaknesses of the ESRB is its lack of real power: it lacks any and all punitive ability.
Game stores do have policies to do with the ratings boards. People who sell the wrong stuff to minors face some pretty stiff financial risks in so doing. The idea of jail time for selling a video game is ludicrous; it's if anything even more disproportionate than enormous sentences for minor drug offenses.
Clearly this has been ineffective in keeping inappropriate games from the hands of minors.
How much documentation do we actually have about the way games like GTA III wind up played by younger kids? If someone showed me that stores completely disregard the ratings, that would be one thing. I'm not convinced of that at all. Unless the demogogues behind this bill show me that they truly understand the whole ecosystem of this problem, I'm not voting for them. At this point it sure seems like they're scaring up a contrived social issue to scare people, not seriously caring about whatever problem's really out there.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
While I don't disagree much with your point, I would add that I, and many other people, expect certain things from the government beyond liberty and security. I expect that garbage be collected - I don't mind if it's subcontracted and if there's a fee (though I'd rather that was covered in income tax, as benefits the truely poor), but if there's no service, there will be serious public health issues.
That brings me on to something else I consider a requirement from the government. Healthcare. I don't believe that the poorest people in society should be unable to get medical care because they can't afford it. Finally, I'd passionately despise any government that withdrew manditory public education.
But, hey, as long as there aren't riots in the street, and you can carry guns and smoke pot, none of the rest really matters, does it?
I'd actually include a lot of that within the realm of freedom and safety; mostly under safety. Though I don't directly support government-run tax-paid services, I am in favor of some significant redistribution of wealth, and I have no problem with groups of people, though their governments, running various sorts of businesses like schools and hospitals and garbage disposal agencies, though those businesses would have to compete with other similar businesses. The redistribution of wealth would see to it that the poor can afford those businesses (or their competitors) about as well as the wealthy, or rather, that the difference between poor and wealthy isn't so much that businesses can price things with broad demand so exorbitantly.
If you're wondering how this falls under "safety", let me explain. I consider both interpersonal issues and economic/ecological issues (those dealing with resources) under both freedom and safety. Interpersonal freedom is your right to generally do what you want and disallow others from doing things unto you that you don't want; this is a right to liberty. Economic freedom is your right to possess things and disallow others from doing things to your possessions that you don't want; this is a right to property.
Those are both "negative rights". Safety invokes "positive" rights. Interpersonal safety, or the right to security, is your right to be rescued from a dangerous situation, which means both a casual duty for individual bystanders to do something to help those in danger and not to create a dangerous situation (firing guns at random in crowds, setting brush fires, etc); and a formal duty for governments to protect those in danger by providing emergency services - police, fire, etc. Economic safety, or the right to charity, is your right to be given to in times of need, which means both a casual duty for individuals to help those who need it and not to depreciate public resources (i.e. damaging the environment, etc), and a formal duty for governments to give to those in need by redistributing wealth. The point of the wealth redistribution is not some sort of communist flat equality though; it is to provide a stable market so that capitalism will function optimally, ensuring prices will be set fairly. It is for defense of the marketplace against market failure.
The specific method I envision for this is simple: take half of everybody's income, pool that, and redistribute it equally. The end effect of this is a progressive tax/welfare scale whereby those with exactly average incomes pay no taxes (unless gov't is operating at a loss) and get no welfare (unless gov't is operating at a profit), while those who make significantly more are taxed more, and those who make significantly less receive more welfare. If you have a healthy market with roughly equal players, almost no money will be redistributed. If you have massive market failure where some people are in disproportionately powerful bargaining positions, then you will have the wealthy being taxed massively and the poor being given a big hand up. But the system will never force complete equality, for the more equal people become the less center-ward pressure is applie
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Just the fact that Thompson is a lawyer makes me doubt his true intentions. He passed the last few years convincing people who don't / can't know better that video games are "evil" and managed to pass a law that is debatable to no end. A) The law itself will be contested. B) The Law is vague enough that any game banned for minors will be contested. C) Games not banned for minors might be contested by supposedly outraged parents and/or anyone. Depending on the interpretation of this law, a game like Tetris can get banned because it doesn't provide any educational value, etc. Even it's "artistic" value can be debatted on... So everything in this can be contested to no end... Who wins from that situation? Parents? Gamers? Store? The game industry? not one of them gains anything from continually arguing in court. Yep you guessed it, the lawyers during all that time receive money to no end because anyone can contest anything in this law. Who pays the lawyers during all that nonsense? We do. (Thompson's colleagues must be happy to no end).
Anyone know if it would be possable to actually class-action or otherwise sue jack on behalf of all gamers and have a chance in hell of winning? I'd like to, I'm sick of his trash. 1st its dancing, then music, then movies, then television, then role playing games (pen and paper) now its video games. This guy has been riding the retarded histeria for a living for 17+ years. It's past time to stop him.
Right over your head. Hint: statistics, and the historical comparisons made to them. I shoulda used a smiley.
Blar.