It doesn't. It says that in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8:
I figured that someone would mention this. I'd say they're in direct conflict with one another, especially in this case. It is supposed to protect the flow of speech (or information in this case).
It takes one person to bypass it. Someone will make something that makes it easier for everyone else (presuming it isn't so simple that any idiot can do it). Also, most file sharers don't appear to be completely computer illiterate (far less so than the average user, anyway). They want free things for whatever reason. Even if it were slightly annoying to bypass, I don't believe that it would stop them from trying to save themselves money.
Trying to analyze everything that is wrong with him
"Wrong" is subjective.
No, it doesn't work like that.
It doesn't? I seem to be able to remember that video games aren't real. I remembered it even as a child (though my parents didn't need to tell me such an obvious thing).
repetition works.
On some people. Perhaps most? It doesn't work on me, anyway. And I've never heard of an instance where a video game influenced someone to such a great degree. Perhaps it's only an abysmally small minority of the population?
What sort of thought processes do you think will go through this kid's mind?
Never been in that situation, so I don't know. Neither do you. However, even if what you are saying is true, so what? This, again, applies to a select minority of the population. Even the abused likely wouldn't be idiotic enough to believe games were real or that they had a place in reality.
But you've gotta be seriously blind if you think that sort of thing is not going to fuck up that kid's head in a major way.
If this happens, it happens to an abysmally small minority of the population who could already be considered 'mentally ill' in the first place. Yes, it's unfortunate that it might (although I still doubt that an abused person, child or not, would look to video games to reach conclusions about what is 'right' or 'wrong' since they're not necessarily complete imbeciles) happen, but I'm not going to censor or ban entertaining things to appease a few people, nor will I support such behavior.
Killing aliens and other bad guys who are themselves trying to kill YOU is obviously fiction, and even justifiable under the concept of self-defense.
When I was a child, I knew it was fiction instantly because I was controlling a character in a video game. Even for a child, this is not difficult to figure out. They may wish it was real, but very, very few believe that it really is real. And, as I said before, if the child is one of the few who needs to be told that it's not real, the parent can do exactly that. Unless they're not good parents, of course. There is no need for censoring/banning in place of actual education. I believe that the former are tools used by imbeciles.
Dude, that happens in real life.
So does murder and shooting. Yet, surprisingly, 'sane' people, even children, don't take this seriously because it's just a game. They still believe that it's 'bad' when it happens to real people, most likely. Again, where is the statistical evidence that shows otherwise? Our crime rates aren't nearly as high as you'd expect (not even the number of violent youths).
Also, you have no fucking clue how children's minds work. Obviously.
Can children be educated? How many of them believe that video games are reality? How many of them would continue believing such even if a trusted parental figure told them otherwise and educated them about how it is not real? I suspect the number is very, very slim.
I think it is. But 'right' and 'wrong' are not universal. They are subjective (which doesn't mean that society can't try to stop those that it believes is hurting it).
I'm sorry to let you in on this, but human beings don't work that way.
I know. I don't care. I'm not going to let what appears to be an abysmally small number of idiots ruin freedom of speech/expression.
There are a lot of people in a grey area, who can be pushed one way or the other.
Where? Who are these people? Many humans are likely imbeciles, but I believe that most of them do think that rape is 'bad'.
Similarly, you can take some gamer kid who does not believe that violence against women is ok, expose him to media that normalize beating up women, and create a batterer.
Ah, but they won't turn into murderers by playing Grand Theft Auto? This, for some reason, only applies to rapists?
Will it be common? No, because that's one influence among many.
Then I don't care. Most people will be fine (even if they aren't very intelligent). If a few people abuse something, then that is not the fault of the media/object. It is their own fault. If everything were to be censored/banned because a few people could, theoretically, abuse it, then that would happen to nearly everything.
Should intelligent, thoughtful people who give a damn say "this is over the line, and we're going to criticize it"? Yes.
I disagree. I think these "intelligent, thoughtful people" that you mention are making a big deal out of an abysmally small portion of the population.
society is currently engaged in a many decade, ongoing effort to teach people things like drunk driving is wrong. domestic violence is wrong.
It isn't necessarily "wrong." That's just an opinion.
we need to get the lesson across that violence between men and women in a domestic situation is extremely wrong, and we need to get that message across loud and clear. certain media that doesn't get with that program, meanwhile, needs to be squelched
In other words, freedom of speech/expression needs to be done away with if you do not agree with it. Many find it fun. Most, even those who don't, will not be affected by it. So, I ask again: what is the problem? Why ban something if it causes no problems (as you implied above)?
But they're not that 'insane'. Really, I believe the small number of violent people (and children) shows beyond a reasonable doubt that, despite most people being subjected to violent media, most people do not replicate the acts they have seen. Especially if it hurts others.
If you're deeply offended by coarse language, you might want to keep your kids from listening to rap music. If you believe religion will be the downfall of mankind, you might want to keep them out of church. If you believe it's wrong to hit women, you might not want them entertaining themselves by doing just that, virtual or otherwise.
I wouldn't want to do any of those things. I'd rather portray facts rather than personal opinions to the best of my ability.
Yes, I was aware of those studies. Now show me a study that links real-world violence with violent media. Also, tell me why crime rates aren't staggeringly high, despite the fact that many people (children included) are subjected to violent media on a daily basis? Locking people up in a small room and then trying to apply the result to the rest of society is quite a hasty conclusion to jump to.
And? Even if they don't, the amount of children who would imitate violence in violent media is abysmally small. The crime rates simply aren't that high, nor are there seemingly enough violent children to reach such a conclusion.
and we've found less violence towards women to be a lofty goal, and we've found smacking women in videogames to be against that goal, so we're going to deny it
Just like the world is flat, correct? As I said before, if you know it causes no harm to be in a piece of fictional entertainment, then how is it logical to "deny it"?
Some don't hold this same opinion, you mean. That's too bad. Also, these same people likely don't feel this way because of games (and, if they did, they would likely be deemed even more 'insane' by society). A few people should not be able to ruin something for the rest. Otherwise, nearly everything would be banned (cars, guns, knifes, etc).
but simply because its insulting to all that society is working towards in terms of less violence towards women
How is it insulting if nothing becomes of it? That sounds illogical to me.
on a scale of importance of 1 to 10, ranks at zero
I was not aware that you could decide how important something is to someone else (or, in this case, a very immense group of people). "Importance" is a matter of opinion.
Seriously. Just stop. All too often I hear things such as people wanting to have kids (why not adopt?) or people who have kids in poorer countries because of their poor living conditions (which is no excuse). I don't see how their wants should somehow override the importance of keeping population growth in check. I'd say that education is the key. Even in 'developed' countries, there are many, many people who need to be educated in this subject (it's not something that takes years to learn, either).
Yes. They made jokes about rape. Why should anyone care? As far as I know, only the people deemed 'insane' by society would be affected by such jokes so much that they would view rape as more 'okay' because of them. As far as I know, no one really believes that rape is okay just because someone (or themselves) make a few jokes about it. Many people murder others in video games for their own entertainment. Does this mean that if they murdered someone in real life they would feel the same way? Most likely not (not that they would even do that in the first place). They're fictional characters.
I see. Yes, they do tend to exaggerate things greatly. That, however, does not warrant people banning/censoring things for specific groups of people (children in this case) just to appease these imbeciles.
Why do you say that? Is education not possible? Are children not able to tell the difference? I certainly could. Even if they can't (which is a very small minority of people), that is where the parent comes in. They do not need to ban the violent media. They merely need to tell the child that it is not real. If a parent does not have the time to do that, they should not be parents at all.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't. It says that in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8:
I figured that someone would mention this. I'd say they're in direct conflict with one another, especially in this case. It is supposed to protect the flow of speech (or information in this case).
It takes one person to bypass it. Someone will make something that makes it easier for everyone else (presuming it isn't so simple that any idiot can do it). Also, most file sharers don't appear to be completely computer illiterate (far less so than the average user, anyway). They want free things for whatever reason. Even if it were slightly annoying to bypass, I don't believe that it would stop them from trying to save themselves money.
Trading in illegally copied material is not protected speech, in America or anywhere else.
Where does it say that in the first amendment? These additions and exclusions appear to be complete fabrications.
I don't know. I'm extremely worried about potential profit!
Trying to analyze everything that is wrong with him
"Wrong" is subjective.
No, it doesn't work like that.
It doesn't? I seem to be able to remember that video games aren't real. I remembered it even as a child (though my parents didn't need to tell me such an obvious thing).
repetition works.
On some people. Perhaps most? It doesn't work on me, anyway. And I've never heard of an instance where a video game influenced someone to such a great degree. Perhaps it's only an abysmally small minority of the population?
What sort of thought processes do you think will go through this kid's mind?
Never been in that situation, so I don't know. Neither do you. However, even if what you are saying is true, so what? This, again, applies to a select minority of the population. Even the abused likely wouldn't be idiotic enough to believe games were real or that they had a place in reality.
But you've gotta be seriously blind if you think that sort of thing is not going to fuck up that kid's head in a major way.
If this happens, it happens to an abysmally small minority of the population who could already be considered 'mentally ill' in the first place. Yes, it's unfortunate that it might (although I still doubt that an abused person, child or not, would look to video games to reach conclusions about what is 'right' or 'wrong' since they're not necessarily complete imbeciles) happen, but I'm not going to censor or ban entertaining things to appease a few people, nor will I support such behavior.
Killing aliens and other bad guys who are themselves trying to kill YOU is obviously fiction, and even justifiable under the concept of self-defense.
When I was a child, I knew it was fiction instantly because I was controlling a character in a video game. Even for a child, this is not difficult to figure out. They may wish it was real, but very, very few believe that it really is real. And, as I said before, if the child is one of the few who needs to be told that it's not real, the parent can do exactly that. Unless they're not good parents, of course. There is no need for censoring/banning in place of actual education. I believe that the former are tools used by imbeciles.
Dude, that happens in real life.
So does murder and shooting. Yet, surprisingly, 'sane' people, even children, don't take this seriously because it's just a game. They still believe that it's 'bad' when it happens to real people, most likely. Again, where is the statistical evidence that shows otherwise? Our crime rates aren't nearly as high as you'd expect (not even the number of violent youths).
Also, you have no fucking clue how children's minds work. Obviously.
Can children be educated? How many of them believe that video games are reality? How many of them would continue believing such even if a trusted parental figure told them otherwise and educated them about how it is not real? I suspect the number is very, very slim.
What do you mean to say is "not real"?
Exactly what it means. The video game is not reality. It is fiction.
Should a parent sit over the child's shoulder with a constant monologue going?
The discussion need only happen once, as far as I know.
I think it is. But 'right' and 'wrong' are not universal. They are subjective (which doesn't mean that society can't try to stop those that it believes is hurting it).
I'm sorry to let you in on this, but human beings don't work that way.
I know. I don't care. I'm not going to let what appears to be an abysmally small number of idiots ruin freedom of speech/expression.
There are a lot of people in a grey area, who can be pushed one way or the other.
Where? Who are these people? Many humans are likely imbeciles, but I believe that most of them do think that rape is 'bad'.
Similarly, you can take some gamer kid who does not believe that violence against women is ok, expose him to media that normalize beating up women, and create a batterer.
Ah, but they won't turn into murderers by playing Grand Theft Auto? This, for some reason, only applies to rapists?
Will it be common? No, because that's one influence among many.
Then I don't care. Most people will be fine (even if they aren't very intelligent). If a few people abuse something, then that is not the fault of the media/object. It is their own fault. If everything were to be censored/banned because a few people could, theoretically, abuse it, then that would happen to nearly everything.
Should intelligent, thoughtful people who give a damn say "this is over the line, and we're going to criticize it"? Yes.
I disagree. I think these "intelligent, thoughtful people" that you mention are making a big deal out of an abysmally small portion of the population.
Ah, so the solution is to... keep breeding?
Sounds like a brilliant idea if your plan is to breed humans to be impulsive and stupid.
They already are, however.
Yes, it is more accessible. However, I believe many people simply don't have the mindset required to undertake the training.
society is currently engaged in a many decade, ongoing effort to teach people things like drunk driving is wrong. domestic violence is wrong.
It isn't necessarily "wrong." That's just an opinion.
we need to get the lesson across that violence between men and women in a domestic situation is extremely wrong, and we need to get that message across loud and clear. certain media that doesn't get with that program, meanwhile, needs to be squelched
In other words, freedom of speech/expression needs to be done away with if you do not agree with it. Many find it fun. Most, even those who don't, will not be affected by it. So, I ask again: what is the problem? Why ban something if it causes no problems (as you implied above)?
get the difference?
No. Shooting other beings is wrong!
If it's fun, and you agree that it doesn't harm them, then there should be no problem.
Some? From the looks of it, a grand majority of them can handle it. That's why most of them aren't violent.
kids are impressionable.
But they're not that 'insane'. Really, I believe the small number of violent people (and children) shows beyond a reasonable doubt that, despite most people being subjected to violent media, most people do not replicate the acts they have seen. Especially if it hurts others.
If you're deeply offended by coarse language, you might want to keep your kids from listening to rap music. If you believe religion will be the downfall of mankind, you might want to keep them out of church. If you believe it's wrong to hit women, you might not want them entertaining themselves by doing just that, virtual or otherwise.
I wouldn't want to do any of those things. I'd rather portray facts rather than personal opinions to the best of my ability.
Yes, I was aware of those studies. Now show me a study that links real-world violence with violent media. Also, tell me why crime rates aren't staggeringly high, despite the fact that many people (children included) are subjected to violent media on a daily basis? Locking people up in a small room and then trying to apply the result to the rest of society is quite a hasty conclusion to jump to.
And? Even if they don't, the amount of children who would imitate violence in violent media is abysmally small. The crime rates simply aren't that high, nor are there seemingly enough violent children to reach such a conclusion.
society and majority opinion can
No, it can't.
and we've found less violence towards women to be a lofty goal, and we've found smacking women in videogames to be against that goal, so we're going to deny it
Just like the world is flat, correct? As I said before, if you know it causes no harm to be in a piece of fictional entertainment, then how is it logical to "deny it"?
many don't
Some don't hold this same opinion, you mean. That's too bad. Also, these same people likely don't feel this way because of games (and, if they did, they would likely be deemed even more 'insane' by society). A few people should not be able to ruin something for the rest. Otherwise, nearly everything would be banned (cars, guns, knifes, etc).
but simply because its insulting to all that society is working towards in terms of less violence towards women
How is it insulting if nothing becomes of it? That sounds illogical to me.
on a scale of importance of 1 to 10, ranks at zero
I was not aware that you could decide how important something is to someone else (or, in this case, a very immense group of people). "Importance" is a matter of opinion.
9-12 billion is still far too many considering that resources are finite (and considering how much we use now).
Seriously. Just stop. All too often I hear things such as people wanting to have kids (why not adopt?) or people who have kids in poorer countries because of their poor living conditions (which is no excuse). I don't see how their wants should somehow override the importance of keeping population growth in check. I'd say that education is the key. Even in 'developed' countries, there are many, many people who need to be educated in this subject (it's not something that takes years to learn, either).
Yes. They made jokes about rape. Why should anyone care? As far as I know, only the people deemed 'insane' by society would be affected by such jokes so much that they would view rape as more 'okay' because of them. As far as I know, no one really believes that rape is okay just because someone (or themselves) make a few jokes about it. Many people murder others in video games for their own entertainment. Does this mean that if they murdered someone in real life they would feel the same way? Most likely not (not that they would even do that in the first place). They're fictional characters.
I see. Yes, they do tend to exaggerate things greatly. That, however, does not warrant people banning/censoring things for specific groups of people (children in this case) just to appease these imbeciles.
Why do you say that? Is education not possible? Are children not able to tell the difference? I certainly could. Even if they can't (which is a very small minority of people), that is where the parent comes in. They do not need to ban the violent media. They merely need to tell the child that it is not real. If a parent does not have the time to do that, they should not be parents at all.