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."
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.
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
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.
...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.
Democrats are equivalent to Republicans everywhere, and have been for a long time now.
Palm trees and 8
I think the question would be whether the tax targets the material for the speech contained or if it targets it as a good. So all games, books, and movies are taxed, but would you, say, only tax movies dealing with unpopular opinions? Then it can be construed as violating the first amendment as this clearly does.
Sales tax is applied uniformly across all products sold whereas this is a tax on a specific product. Taxing any item sold regardless of the item doesn't have a chilling effect on consumers buying the product, but a targeted tax on the sales of a specific item is designed with that exact purpose in mind. Think cigarette taxes as an example.
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?
The difference is, this would be a content-based tax on something that has been found to be protected speech. A uniform sales tax on all goods is not a violation of the First Amendment, but if books supporting one particular political party or putting forth one particular opinion were taxed at a different rate than books putting forward the opposite position, then the tax would almost certainly run afoul of the First Amendment. This is a tax that applies only to video games, not other forms of expression, and furthermore applies only to those games with a teen or mature rating, which is closely related to the content of those games.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?