Slashdot Mirror
Oklahoma Politician Wants To Tax Violent Video Games
dotarray writes "According to an Oklahoma politician, video games help cause many problems affecting the youth of today, but they can also help solve those same problems. Representative William Fourkiller, a Democrat, has proposed a 1% tax on every video game sold which has a Teen, Mature or Adults Only rating. He explains that half of the money would go towards helping to get kids playing outside, while the other half would be placed into a bullying prevention fund."
I'm sure throwing money at something will both convince kids to play outside and prevent bullying. Gee, where can I contribute to the "bullying prevention fund?"
"For the children" is one of the basest forms of emotional appeal. The emotional satisfaction justifies it in many people's minds, and to argue against it makes one vulnerable to accusations of not caring about kids.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Look its "for the children"(TM) , we must comply.
Tax all kids in school at 1% of their lunch money and use that money to fight bullying in schools. Can we also get a 1% tax on violent blockbusters and tv shows where half off that goes to the movie studios and half goes to violence prevention?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I suggest a conditional tax.
1% of total politician networth every time they say something stupid. The deficit would turn to a surplus in a week, especially now during campaign season.
More bright ideas from you local politician.. Do they all have their head in the sand?
Does he not realize that M and AO games are not supposed to be played by children in the first place?
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
So when those kids go outside and get bullied, there will be a support program for them. -sigh-
The best way to teach out kids that bullying is bad is to stop doing it ourselves, and to teach them it's not okay to pick on others for any reason. Mine taught me, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." For me, it stuck. For others, it apparently didn't, or they weren't taught it. Am I perfect at it? No. But I try.
But a government program to teach it? No way. It'll never work. It has to be something every citizen wants, not something that the government tries to force us into. Actually wants, not just says they want.
I'm not against providing nice, safe outdoor play areas for kids. Hopefully away from my apartment windows and doors. I would have loved to have it as a kid, and I'd love to have them away from my apartment now. But attacking an industry to do so is not the way to go about it.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
For having a name like FourKiller.
Bullying prevention fund? How about take care of larger social problems and get people back to work or fix the horrible infrastructure in Oklahoma.
Amazing that I read this just after reading an article about several suicides in a small town in Michigan. It seems the anti-homosexual leadership in the community and school district basically ignored charges of bullying by students.
Funny how I don't remember a computer game that teaches kids how to be hateful bigots. Pretty sure they got that from their parents and their church.
A Democratic politician in Oklahoma is equivalent to a Republican politician in most other states.
When will these idiots learn, you can't impose a pentalty based on content.
Tax all games at 1% or none.
Fall afoul of "restraint of trade"?
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
The pasty complexions of those kids driven outside will make poor natural camouflage and leave them easy prey for bullies...
The other other half would go to the politician's pet project, which will somehow find its way into his pockets.
Taxing all games the same.. sure, that is up to the state to decide. A sin tax on games that someone "doesn't like". How does that make sense? If their actual concern was to get kids to do more healthy activities, how does taxing a certain class of games help? Presumably sitting inside playing Mario Brothers is just as unhealthy as Modern Warfare. This is just another excuse to get a revenue stream under the guise of "for the children".
Also, how does money get kids to go outside to play, unless they are being directly bribed? How does money get bullies to stop bullying?
And to add to the absurdity; according to the rules, kids aren't playing Mature and Adults Only games, so how does diverting money from them... uhh... *cracke cracke* you're breaking up...
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Most games are bought by their parents in the first place, so how would 1% more cost going to tell the parents that their kids should spend more time outside? Not like they tell them already with the $50+ price tag there are on most games these days.
I don't mind taxes if the money is used right, but that is just stupid...
Hundreds of millions of dollars are given to politicians every year so they can lie to us about the mess they are making of everything. If half the money given to politicians was given to the poor it could make a significant difference both in the lives of the poor and it would half the bullshit we have to listen to!
Violence is okay. So let's tax it. But if it had anything remotely sexually explicit, then it must be banned.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Admit it, sooner or later some do-gooder was going to try and slap a vice tax on your favorite pastime.
And I want to tax absurd Oklahoma politicians.
And off my lawn!!!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Why tax just the violent video games? That's not going to be much of a deterrent. Also, if it is a deterrent, then those that are delusional enough to act on things that they see in a video game will simply act on something that they see in a violent movie or read about in a violent book.
How about a tax on stupid ideas? I bet that country debt will melt away in a few years.
I'm pretty sure you cannot enact laws that are regulated by a private organization. The ESRB (and MPAA) is a private organization, and as such they an only put out guidelines. I'm pretty sure there have been plenty of times in the past where lawmakers wanted to put out a law saying that children can't buy R rated movies, but the most they have been able to accomplish is simply requiring businesses don't lie about the ratings.
Also, not all T and up rated games have their rating due to violence, and many games are simply unrated. I could see businesses releasing special Oklahoma edition of the game that simply is not rated.
If video game content is protected by the First Amendment (and current law indicates it is), then a 1% tax based on contents is just as impermissible as a 10000% tax or a straight-up ban.
3/4ths of both the House and Senate have to pass it, otherwise it gets put to a public vote.
Of course, the ESA could simply dissolve the ESRB, or refuse to rate any games shipped to Oklahoma. (Yes, the bill specifically mentions the ESRB and its ratings.)
The problem here isn't the availability of violent games. The problem here is lack of parental supervision and control. If parents were responsible and acted like parents, they should tell their kids that those games are off limits.
Even if both parents have to work, letting your kids know this isn't okay (and disciplining them should they be caught playing such a game) is what is needed. Legislation and taxes are not.
I swear that the government wants to tax all of our problems away. But the problem with that - people become more dependent upon the state to fix their problems, the less useful and able to solve problems on their own. Sure some may not want to deal with problems themselves. But life is always full of problems that have to be faced and conquered
If Oklahoma does this - what's next? Public toilet per-use tax so the bowls can shine for each user and be more clean? Come on. All law makers passed the ridiculous line a long time ago. If they don't want to do what Americans want them to do, then it is time we removed them from office - by voting them out if possible, and by force if necessary. It is our duties as Americans to stand up to a government that does not represent us.
Why can't we use this Bullying Prevention Fund to stop politicians passing bad laws on the people?
Apparently you've never heard of this church...
I've come a long way from the anti-tax Republican I used to be, but come on buddy, you aren't doing ANYTHING to dispel the "tax-every-problem-away-Democrat" cliche.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
...so long as they tax violent movies and television first.
It's not flamebait if it is the truth. Specifically from the article I am referring to:
"At churches like First Baptist Church of Anoka, parishioners believe that homosexuality is a form of mental illness caused by family dysfunction, childhood trauma and exposure to pornography â" a perversion curable through intensive therapy."
Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202#ixzz1lFttG0bh
And it was Minnesota - not Michigan. Had Michigan on the brain from earlier today.
Ok, I'll have my kids take their DS outside. Good idea. Tell them it's the law.
They can use that tax money to hire bodyguards for the kids to walk around at the playground while playing Angry Birds on their smartphones/tablets. It's a win-win situation; keeping kids safe and employing hard-up people.
With a Republican governor, and Republicans controlling both houses of the state legislature, a proposed law for a tax increase sponsored by a Democrat is dead in the water.
The people playing that "Collateral Murder" game are not going to be happy.
From the article:
Samuel Balaban, the manager of Oklahoma City's Little Shoppe of Games, says kids can also be influenced by violent movies, TV shows and music that aren't taxed.
Mr Balaban went on, "In fact, scientists have recently discovered that TV and music that isnt taxed actually causes cancer."
My little fat Johnny who plays Mario Cart all day long was expelled from school for bullying because he was throwing things at classmates who were around him. I say we should tax ESRB: E (Comic Mischief) also!
...due to a sporting event.
In the United States, sporting events are often associated with violent riots, as well, though with lower death tolls. Europe is well known for its soccer hooligans.
Ever hear of 80 people being killed following a LAN event? Any riots at GenCon or E3?
Didn't think so.
If this guy was sincere, he'd be proposing a 1% tax on sports equipment, sales of licensed sports franchise clothing, etc, and using the money to fund children's hospitals which treat the many crippling (and sometimes fatal) injuries that occur from childhood sports. (Check out the average number of high school students killed in school shootings each year, and the average number of high school students killed in school sports.)
Of course, he's not sincere. "Sincerity" is an alien concept to such as he. He's a vile, contemptible, parasitic piece of verminous scum who exploits fear and ignorance in order to gain power. He is a creature without any personal worth, a loathsome leech who feeds off the misery and pain of others, and grows fat and happy on their suffering. Or, in other words, a politician. Even among that repugnant crew of amoral reprobates, though, people like Fourkiller represent the scrapings of the bottom of a barrel that is, itself, filled with the scrapings from the bottom of the barrel.
So he wants to forcibly take our money? Isn't that bullying?
Now I'm not just a psychotic killer, but a broke psychotic killer.
Table-ized A.I.
Anti bullying measures? WTF is that supposed to be , a slush fund for political campaigns? Kids need to learn how to deal with bullies not have some one intervene all the time. If your kid killed themselves, then YOU were just a bad parent. And why are you taxing Mature and Adult Only games? these are not meant to be played by your parent-less child. Why should I have to pay for your shitty parenting?
Let's tax westerns and football and rock and roll while we're at it, after all they promote violence.
What's that? Nooo? You don't want *your* favorite media having the tax?
I guess it should only apply to video games then, since todays kids are so much more worse.
First of all, if you want to help kids, why would you tax games for adults? Secondly, why tax games, and not school, where all of the bullying happens? And how would a tax help kids play outside or prevent bullying anyway? There's already a zero tolerance on bullying, so it must mean if bullying is still going on, then adults aren't seeing it or aren't aware of it and can't do anything about it. If you want kids to play outside more, that's up to the parent. Why should the government meddle in these things? And if the problems caused by video games are also solved by them, then where's the real problem? So much about this politician's point of view just sounds wrong and misinformed.
Typical democratic ideology. Money solves all problems.. I can remember when Tipper Gore's PMRC was trying to leverage the same bullshit on what they claimed was 'violent' music.
So... I wonder if he just doesn't understand the law, or if he understands it and is proposing the passage of an illegal law anyway. Since the First Amendment would not exactly be happy with this kind of tax.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Maybe we could impose a one percent tax on porn and use the proceeds to help the porn purchasers "get outside and play" with real people!
Why is it that all politicians have the same answer... Tax it!!
If something is good, then it's time to come up with a tax for it.
If something is bad, then it's time to come up with a tax for it.
If something is an unknown mystery to them, then it should be debated for two years, but in the mean time lets tax it "just in case"
video games, sugar, all these things are already taxed at least once... If people want to make their lifestyle choices buying those things, it's not the governments job to stop them.
Seems this quote applies - from Adolf Hitler, Mien Kampf:
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure
of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the
benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any
curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
Violent games should be subject to very high taxes. Teaching about violence to poor children is exceedingly dangerous for our happy society
I could be incorrect- but I thought I read somewhere in the last two years a large study that reported that violent video-games, contrary to previous opinion, caused less violence. The games kept teenagers off the street AND acted as an outlet for violent expression.
1% is not going to be a deterrant- and wheras it would be nice to have a fund to give children more places to play outside; I don't think such a venture should be based on a morality tax that is based on a faulty premise.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
How about, let's stop using taxes to make social manipulations?
Politicians like making up groups of people and products and place little individual taxes on all of them. If they are in front of middle class people, they'll say "We're going to put a tax on the rich". If they are in front of the rich, they'll say "we're going to put a tax on those keeping their money overseas". If they are in front of the really rich, who keep their money overseas, they'll say "we're going to raise capital gains tax" (to protect the wealthy from those who would grow to overtake them).
They'll put a tax on tanning beds to pay for health care. They tax blank CDs to pay for the artist bureaucracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act. There are taxes on food, taxes on things like cigarettes, taxes on just about everything you can point at. Everyone loves the taxes because the only ones that they know about are the ones on somebody else.
Politicians split up the population into classes, both based on income and based on industry, using all these different kinds of taxes. People vote for them because they think "oh he's fighting for me". The absurd amount of overhead wears down any economy.
Anytime someone suggests taxing something to promote a social policy, even if it is a social policy you support, just say no.
Yeah, those were the times in high school when us gamers bullied the hell out of the basketball team...oh wait.
If you don't understand the difference between a representative in the Oklahoma state legislature and the president of the United States, please refrain from voting. A coin toss would be better informed.
I see it now games will all have "g" rating but then you can "download" the "unofficial" plugin to add gore, violence, and nudity to the game. When are these morons going to learn how to fix the problem instead of band-aid it so the rich get richer and the power take in the bum.
Just another excuse to add new taxes.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Well, what kind of politician would do a thing like this? A great one probably. lol
Hey what happened to... Fourkiller!!!
If half goes to this and half goes to that, where does the 150% come from that will be needed to cover the cost of administering the tax? Nothing the government does is ever cheap.
Karma: Neutered
by taxing everything that moves, then bitching because some folks can find a way to succeed anyway...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Not all (or even most) churches teach people to be bigots, just like not all (or even most) parents teach their kids to be bigots. But a significant portion (of both) most certainly do, and it's foolish to try to deny it.
What a coincidence, I want to tax Oklahoma Politicians!
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
The tax will never go to educating kids on physical activities.
Fuck the shakedown.
Anyone know how to get the admins to bounce an account to mode parent into the abyss?
Time to offend someone
More spam from parent. Mode down.
Time to offend someone
I thought that normally the way things worked was that we had a communal need, so a tax was created to fund said need. This is even true with many excise taxes, though maybe that's not historically true at all times, but gas taxes pay for roads and taxes on cigs and booze pay for... healthcare or research or something? Maybe not.
But, coming up with a tax and needing to make up a whole new thing to spend money on just to justify the tax you want to create as an economic disincentive seems crazy to me. I'm sure others will inundate me with examples on all levels that make this appear to be the standard, but it seems to me that during a recession and during a time where the tax conversation is so vitriolic, inventing new revenue sources AND new expenditures is ridiculous.
Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
Such a tax is flatly unconstitutional. If they can tax at 1%, what's to prevent them from taxing at 100%? Or 100,000,000%? The power to tax is the power to destroy [wikipedia.org], and there's no way this will survive a constitutional challenge.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
if we begin to teach kids
1 how to get along (with the related lessons on how a boy should treat a girl and vise versa)
2 how to END fights quickly (and the related ones on not starting fights)
and
3 stopped this whole "both parties are guilty" thing with fights
4 BANNED parents from suing the school over anything short of actual negligent actions (no suing the school for bad grades or because My Little Angel got an owie)
then we would have a lot less of a problem
(a 5th grade bully would stop if a girl in 1st grade put her foot through his knee because she couldn't run clear)
The problem is teaching kids how to deal with School Yard Bullies also teaches them how to deal with Government Bullies
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
while the other half would be placed into a bullying prevention fund.
aka, slush fund
just will push more to steam / other online stores and that will cost OK the sales tax as well.
Is he going to tax
1. PG-13, R, NC-17 movies?
2. Violent music?
3. Hockey / Boxing / WWE?
What about games that have 0 violence but get Teen or above rating due to sexual nature?
I like to see him try to tax violent free MMO.
He says violent games make kids bullies and lazy? I can prove he is wrong.
My girlfriends son is 10. He plays outside a lot when its nice, has never gotten in trouble for fighting or anything (just talking too much sometimes or day dreaming, but hey, he is 10), is a generally good kid, does his homework, goes to bed when he is told, cleans his room and such. But oh no, he plays violent video games.
If games actually made people violent or lazy then every single person who ever played one would be lazy and violent. If a game actually caused that problem then it would be in every person who played them, but guess what? Not every person who plays ones becomes a bully so that means games dont cause it.
Maybe parents should actually try parenting their kids and maybe we wouldnt have so many problems.
They need to put a tax on the sale of violent books as well, The Bible comes to mind.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe D.A.R.E. is a subversive organization intended to show children the hypocrisy of the current status quo? Makes the Yes Men look like punters.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
That's just retarded. Don't people get it... violent video games do not create violent behaviors... there's really no correlation there.
We don't need new taxes - we have plenty already. Instead of a 1% tax on video games, just raise all sales taxes by 0.1%. Less paperwork, more revenue.
If you don't understand the difference between a representative in the Oklahoma state legislature and the president of the United States, please refrain from voting. A coin toss would be better informed.
A coin toss? Did everybody see that? artor3 supports the two party system!
He should be taxed for all the bullying he does to the number 4!
How about we tax ignorance?
If you take more than 5min. to purchase a single item using an automatic checkout counter, it applies the additional tax.
Let's tax ugly!
Beauty salons, gyms, etc can apply the additional tax as they see fit.
or better yet
Let's tax the squirrels!
Point is, this has nothing to do with trying to put a stop to or limit purchasing or developing violent video games, he's just trying to find a way to squeeze out more money.
that we use all of that money to somehow get rid of such morons from public offices.
Well Obama and Oklahoma both start with O, so they must be the same thing right? Also, he firmly believes that Oklahoma is secretly made of muslin from Kansas.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Oh, yay! Can I please learn your mad-SEO skills? Is one of the mistakes on your webpage spamming forums?
167 comments and not one find of the word censorship I believe. Why isn't this tagged censorship? No, seriously, why isn't it tagged censorship? A tax like this is a sin tax, is it not? A sin tax is something you do to discourage people from using. If the gov't takes a stance against these video games because they think they have a negative effect on people, then it's essentially the gov't censoring material, even if it's not out-right banned.
A worse situation is... how are they going to define what is violent?
The kids playing videogames tend to be the ones being bullied. If they wanted to make the law more sensible, they should tax athletic equipment to fund an anti-bullying program. Make the ones most responsible pay more.
Has data to back up that assumption that violent video games leads to bullying? I'd like to see the data that makes that correlation.
Point #2, this idiot wants to tax a game meant for teen or up, and use half the money to get "kids playing outside", seems kids aren't the ones playing these games, it's people who are old enough to know if they want to go outside or play a video game.
This sounds like one of those soapbox empty gestures we see from politicians from time to time. "Well I did this for the children". Would this tax affect those outside the state or would that tax be across the whole country? What if I purchase my games from a source outside the country. How will that tax be collected?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Does a state sales tax on books likewise violate the First Amendment as applied to the several states by the Fourteenth? If so, then how do so many states get away with requiring Barnes & Noble to collect and remit sales tax? If not, then what's the difference between what this state representative proposes and a sales tax?
If X exists, there are Democrats who wish to tax X.
It's a corollary to the porn rule that if X exists there is porn of X on the Internet.
Sock Puppets: damn_registrars=pudge_confirmer=jimmy_slimmy=raiigunner=cml4524=a_klavan=red4men=ronpaulisanidiot
Not as batshit insane as it sounds at first glance, or compared to many other activities of our current breed of career politicians.
For one, it's a reasonable number that makes it probable he is serious and it's not a hidden "drive the prices up to make it unprofitable if we can't outlaw it" agenda.
Two, the cause is reasonable. Yes, it's a "for the children" cause, but definitely not the worst. I don't know how exactly he plans to get kids outside with money, short of paying them, but I don't think anyone would disagree that a healthy amount of physical outdoor activity is a good thing.
I'm not exactly convinced, yet - but compared to the usual utter nonsense we are used to, it sounds fairly reasonable and measured.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
In an ideal world, I could just tell my kids that I'd really like it if they wouldn't play game X, or download songs or movies off the internet, or what have you. In the end, however, my feelings are unfortunately not valued as much as what they personally deem important to themselves.
So, maybe I'm just a mlitiant parent... doubtless some would probably call me a control freak. Personally, however, I really just want peace in my household... and if a technology can help me silently close the door on things I don't want my kids doing, at least while they are under my care, without me having to argue with them about it, then I'm all for it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
We need to get away from all these little taxes and just have a set tax rate.
Because money is fungible this just obscures their ability to route other tax money to their pet projects.
in texas we added a lottery for school funding.
Then as lottery income wentup, they cut funding to schools in tandom and used the money elsewhere.
End result- a lottery and no more money for schools than before.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It's a problem with poor coping skills and conflict resolution abilities.
Fatherless children and nanny-state court systems that issue jail time to 12 year olds for school yard brawls are the problem...Money wasted.
We need parents that teach personal strength. And we need to let kids practice resolving their own problems. It sounds barbaric...but we've all known some kids that beat the living crap out of eachother, then became total bros after the fight.
They're having a hard time raising taxes without pissing off rank and file voters especially since some states already have pretty high taxes. New Jersey for example has property taxes about as high as mortgage rates. Consequently you can pay your mortgage down and pay about as much in property taxes.
Anyway, as they can't do that they're now going after sin taxes. They'll tax booze, sugar, sodas, fast food... anything seen as a moral or ethical lapse. They'll tax them one at a time so that only the group that likes that sin fights.
It's about the money. It's not about public safety, the children, or medical health. It's just money. Period.
Easiest way to prove it... tell them "yes, great idea. Only instead of a tax/fine we'll do something that doesn't net you any money or we'll collect the tax but it will be explicitly used for something you can't touch." Almost instantly they tend to not care anymore about whatever they were whining about. Which is odd because if they cared about "the children" that should be good enough. But that was never the point. It was just the money.
What's most remarkable about this fellow is that he actually thinks he'll get any measurable amount of money from such a tax or that it would even be enforceable.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
What portion of this money will get funneled away from the proposed earmarking for preventing bullying and into the politician's pock-- I mean the general fund after the law is passed?
If Kids play outside they will only be arrested and beaten by cops.
Expecting kids to play outside would be accepting an urban culture.
Activities which are disliked, and bullied upon by attention starved cops.
Yet more meddling by the government in trying to legislate how people choose to live. ...and the proof is where/what exactly that specifically violent video games increase bullying and/or cause kids to need to go outside more?
Basically, any game that doesn't make violence look nice and fluffy receives a 1% tax.
I've seen Descent: Freespace receive an E rating, while Descent II received a T rating. If you take that at face value, then it appears that blowing up robots is a much more serious concept than killing humans.
If this guy had his head wedged any further into his lower extremities, he'd implode. The age demographic for video games has slowly increased over the years (as kids who grew up gaming continue to be the primary customers), iirc it is hovering around 30 years old. I'm sure as hell not worried about some 30 year old playing a violent video game, and parents who grew up gaming understand what is and is not OK for their kids to be playing.
Kids will never see any of that tax money. It'll go to some BS little "committee" of which the politician is surely a member, who all get paid for doing nothing under the guise of bullying prevention or getting kids off the bad ol' television box. Little timmy will notice no difference except when daddy and mommy grumble about the gubbermint taxing their videogames.
With TV sitcoms and "realities" taking the lions share.
In a recent interview about the proposed tax on violent video games Mr. Nukem responded "No taxation without representation!"
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
It would also be cheaper than the whole voting circus. Plus, it would serve pretty much the same purpose.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
so 1% tax on all games meeting this criteria, as opposed to the 7.3% I currently pay? sounds like a good idea :)
troll on!
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
Isn't time to get rid of the government and reclaim our freedom?
Live free and let them die (preferably in a video game of course)
I always wonder why so many youngsters (and I mean quite young) are online playing Call of Duty, since it is an M rated game. They checked my ID when I bought it, and I am in my 30s. This sounds like another case of bad parents wanting to blame everything in the world besides themselves...
Unless he also wants to tax parents for beating their children, then I don't give a shit. Add to that a tax for drug addicts who have children, parents that neglect their children, parents who let television raise their children...fuck. I'd think Oklahoma would be a perfect place for a dipshit like this to get Giffords'd.
There are violent TV shows where hot lead is pumped into people, fake blood spurts out all over, the people die, and it looks way more real than the red pixels on a computer screen look, so tax the commercials associated with those shows too because if video games cause violence, then so do TV shows.
Why not tax ALL video games, and then spend 100% of the revenue on parks and playgrounds?
Here in Canada, there was supposed to be help for problem gamblers, which made casinos okay. My uncle was a problem gambler. Lost pretty much everything he had. He voluntarily checked himself into the "help for problem gamblers" program. He got admitted and stuck in with a group of drug addicts. It did nothing for him. Since he voluntarily checked in, he was able to check out and try to solve his problems without government help.
Based on what I've seen of US politics, when taxes are introduced for a certain purpose, that is exactly what they aren't going to do with it. Have fun with your new sludge factory in Tulsa, courtesy of Haliburton and this tax!
Ethanol (like many other legal drugs that have a high tax associated with them) has proven negative effects on the human body. [...] Try to prove the same with violent games and you have a case.
This case or that case? How about a purported link to hindering development of empathy? Has anyone got the time?
The authority is on the side of the bullies, so just let them walk all over you, or you will be punished.
I don't believe that is really the case after Columbine. Now school administrators are terrified of bullying. They are afraid of extreme actions students may take as a result of the vile society that children create for themselves. Suicides and shootings are was administrators are afraid of, and the lawsuits attached to those kinds of extreme events.
Of course administrators still like to prattle on about zero tolerance for violence, and will generally punish both the bully and his/her victim. For them establishing inflexible rules to maintain order is the best way to avoid responsibility and ultimately a lawsuit.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Politicians love to treat symptoms rather than causes. Finding the root cause for our social ills is too much work and usually results in an answer too complicated to make into a political slogan.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Actually, under well-established Supreme Court precedent, the use of fecal matter for speech would likely be analyzed under an intermediate scrutiny O'Brien standard, applicable to cases of mixed speech and action.
The government restriction on fecal matter would need (1) to be enacted pursuant to governmental authority (constitutional if Congress), (2) to further an important or substantial government interest (3) that is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and (4) must prohibit no more than is essential to further that interest.
That's actually easier than it sounds, because almost anything can be a substantial government interest and I think the "essential" language here is actually meant pretty loosely--more loosely than the strict scrutiny "least restrictive means" requirement, for example.
The Supreme Court noted, I believe in Johnson, that a ban on fires would ban the burning of flags, but a ban on flag-burning would fail the O'brien test because it would be aimed at the suppression of free expression. Similarly, a ban on fecal matter for public health reasons would be permissible, whereas a ban on fecal matter because it is offensive would normally be constitutionally invalid.
In addition, the Secondary effects test of Renton could be used to consider the suppression of fecal matter. A restriction might be permissible because it would arguably be aimed at the secondary effects of fecal matter, which would trigger the (Arguably) slightly easier Time, Place, and Manner test for permissible restrictions on speech.
Finally, there is the "Speech and Debate Clause," which adds another wrinkle when trying to restrict Congressional speech. So one would have to be clear about what kind of Santorum was regulated.
*blinks*
Okay. That's it. I'm never taking an internet posting to its logical conclusion again.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Wheres the tax on violent movies and tv shows?
There's an easier solution. Want kids to play outside? All you have to do is make their parents understand that it is actually safe for kids to play outside. Ask a U.S. mom why her kids aren't playing outside. She'll not answer "computer games" - she'll say "I don't have time to watch over them right now." Try to explain that a 5 - 10 year-old doesn't need constant supervision and she'll name ten different children that were abducted in the last decade. She saw a documentary about it just last night on Fox. "And then there's Al Quaeda", she'll add.
Look at any neighbourhood in Europe. Lots of kids playing in the street. And it's not for lack of computer games. Just parents that arent constantly being told to be scared.
I'm not a violent person, but I played Doom, DOOM 2, Quake, Quake 3; and many other games. I'm in my thirties now, I still game, I also have my own business, and help friends out with their problems all the time. I've never been charged, arrested, or ticketed for ANYTHING! The GAMES have nothing to do with it. My mother taught me to be a good person, and to not let other things, and other people effect who I am. So I'm a good person, who does good things with my spare time and money. The games have nothing to do with it. They are JUST GAMES! I think a kid who plays football, or wrestles is MORE likely to have problems with violence then a kid who sits around playing a video game. That fake "wrestling" crap on TV is way more likely to inspire a kid to settle things with violence than a kid who plays video games, and was also taught how to communicate and cope with feeing angry in a mature way. That's what this is about, mature communication and mature coping mechanisms. If you teach your kids to comprehend that the video game is a FANTASY, a WORK OF FICTION; not reality. Then they will deal with the two differently. Too many kids these days confuse fantasy with reality, but it isn't really the games fault or problem. Its a failure on the part of the parent to teach the child to be wise about how they interpret things of fiction.
It's not flamebait if it is the truth. Specifically from the article I am referring to:
"At churches like First Baptist Church of Anoka, parishioners believe that homosexuality is a form of mental illness caused by family dysfunction, childhood trauma and exposure to pornography â" a perversion curable through intensive therapy."
Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202#ixzz1lFttG0bh
And it was Minnesota - not Michigan. Had Michigan on the brain from earlier today.
I live in Minnesota, and this IS happening in Anoka. It has brought on a new legislation to make "Bulleying" illegal. It is a vague law that encompasses any education related events, camps, classes, schools, employees, students, volunteers to got through training and also enforce the "law" Since when did passing a law, cause something to not happen? Example: stealing, cheating, murder, are all against the law. Speeding is illegal. How is a law supposed to curtail bullying?
Competitive games result in more agressive behaviours, *not* violent games. Several studies have shown this.
What make you more violent: a game where you compete to grab coins/wherever first and have to compete to be faster that the rest, both kids getting mad when they're not on the lead, or a game where you shoot zombies together (the ultraviolent ones, I mean)?
I think we all know the answer, and it's time to inform these politicians.
Yes I played GTA (Grand Theft Auto) and was so moved by the game and the fact I could slaughter people and pigs, I decided to try it in real life, not realizing that they would send in snipers and military ops to take me out, or capture me and hold me under terrorist laws. Kids these days!!!!!! That is the real problem with the US to many ways to escape reality without actually physically killing people.