Ladies and gentlemen, I remind you about how well-documented this sort of thing is: the wheel of reincarnation. Personally, I'm betting that hardware is now so disposable that we'll eventually get to having our machines in one hunk of silicon, and the wheel will stall.
Exactly. I'll bet it will be called a "Tablet".
Actually, I envision the day when all phones will have a compatible interface that will allow for keyboards, mice and monitors to be hooked up to them. You take your "phone" to work, plug it in, do work. Pull it out, browse the web on your way home and plug it into your dock at home where you play games or whatever it is you do with your current PC at home. You go and visit your buddy and want to show him some new whiz-bang-app you have, you plug your phone into his dock and use your pc/phone as you did at home and work.
When ARM processors become comparable to the current x86's we use in our PC's, the above scenario is not at all implausible. The Motorola Atrix is an example of this in action, but it is too slow and expensive to be practical. Once the ARM is fast enough and if phone manufacturers can agree on a dock standard and third parties get involved in making the docks, your phone will push your PC out of you home and office. And like you said, cell phone hardware is more or less disposable.
Context can only twist the meaning so much. When the bible says that we should stone a woman to death because she was raped
John 8, 1-11
1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
So in essence what you are saying is that you refuse to read the justices' opinions in the recent decision, you refuse to read established case law, you refuse to accept the classification of video games as speech, and you support the expansion of government power over citizens at the expense of the taxpayer... yet somehow you expect me to believe that you are actually an ideological conservative who is capable of a rational discussion? I'm sorry but I have given you the benefit of the doubt for long enough. I'm done here.
You claim that I can't have a rational discussion, but you refuse to even acknowledge my point. My point is that free speech rights are limited when it comes to children, and even some adults. All branches of government have upheld this. The 14th Amendments states that all citizens are afforded equal protection and rights under the law, yet an 20 year old war vet may not buy a beer. A 12-yr old may not buy a Penthouse. A 16-yr old may not buy a bong. There are age limits on all kinds of things, even for adults. So if those are not in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, as the Justices cited, then how is this a violation? That's the one question you keep ignoring because you simply can't answer it.
I'm OK with video games being speech. Just as I'm OK with pornography being speech or a 2 Live Crew album being speech. However, even speech has its limits when it comes to children. I don't know how many times I need to say it, but let's try it in bold to see if it soaks in:
IF A COMMUNITY OR STATE MAY LIMIT A KID'S "RIGHT" TO PURCHASE PORNOGRAPHY, THEN THE SAME COMMUNITY OR STATE MAY LIMIT A CHILD'S RIGHT TO PURCHASE A VIDEO GAME.
Yes, they are both speech. I'll even say that making a video game and making a porn are both speech. But a community has the right to impose age requirements to purchase them.
So, answer my question. If a community can limit how much pornography a 10 yr old may purchase, why can they not limit what video games a child may purchase? What is the difference?
To be honest, I see no more need to respond to your facile example than to respond to allegations that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater constitute free speech.
Right. Because yelling fire in a crowded theater is a threat to safety. Making kids respect quite time is not a public safety issue.
And, your quote lays out a good explanation as to why public school is needed, but does nothing to explain why a child has free speech rights over his/her parent's wishes, yet has no free speech rights when confronted by a government official. The only valid explanation is that children have limited free speech rights.
You keep looking at this as a ruling on a child's right to purchase video games. That is not an example of speech.
RIGHT! That's what I've been saying. A child's purchasing power is not a free speech issue.
What is considered speech, as was supported by the Supreme Court, is the publication of a video game.
And here is where I feel the court, or at least those defending the California law screwed up. There was nothing in the law that prevented the publication of a video game. There was nothing in the law that prevented a publisher from marketing their game to children. The only thing the law did was prevent children from purchasing them WITHOUT A PARENT. That "without a parent" is the critical portion. There was nothing to prevent children from owning the game or even playing it. The law was to prevent children from purchasing the game without parental consent.
What is considered speech, as was supported by the Supreme Court, is the publication of a video game. If you could tell me why video games should not be considered speech in the way that literature, movies, music, or any other type of media are, I suppose I might agree that the government would be within its mandate to regulate them. However, as the Supreme Court ruled that video games fall under the umbrella of speech, they are protected by the first amendment.
Nope. Exactly the same. And in the same way that a child may not buy a Penthouse Magazine from the corner store, they should not be able to purchase a video game with content designated for adults only. Now if you can tell me why a child should not be allowed to purchase a DVD of "Riding Ms. Daisy" but be allowed to purchase Postal2, I'm all ears. Like you said, these forms of media should be treated the same. If a video game is rated to be for adults only, then only adults should be allowed to purchase it, exactly how other adults only material is handled today. While I don't know if it's a national law or not, but where I live, it is illegal to even show a kid pornography, much less sell it to one. Giving a kid the latest Oui mag will get you put on the predator's list.
Pushing all of that aside, however, you are still a shitty conservative for wanting to cede the rights of citizens to choose what type of media to consume to the government.
Nope, still state's rights. If a community wants to keep strip clubs out of their community or away from school kids, which many do with no Constitutional issues, I'm OK with that. And, just as a community may want to keep kids out of strip clubs or strip clubs a respectable distance from schools, I see no problems with a community making that decision for themselves. On the flip side, if a community wanted their school kids to take a field strip to the local "adult book store", I'm OK with that too. That's what state's rights are all about. I have a whole lot more power swaying my city hall or state capitol that I do with the Supreme Court of the United States. That's why this is a conservative, state's rights issue.
Firstly, "states' rights" refers to, and I quote, "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States." As curtailing free speech, which includes production and publication of video games (as found in this case,) is expressly prohibited by the first amendment, I don't understand why you think that states' rights is even an applicable term here.
Fine. Apply this to my teacher telling her students to be quiet example. A teacher is a government employee. Wouldn't you consider a government employee telling citizens to not speak to violate free speech? When you can how this is allowed, we'll move on to you next point.
Also, it made me laugh when I realized that you haven't picked up on the fact that this isn't about a child's right to purchase a video game, it's about video game publishers' right to publish video games similar to the manner in which book publishers and movie publishers and music publishers make their respective media available to the market at large, without the work being ghettoized as somehow not speech and therefore to be regulated by the government. You are so myopic and unable to understand simple situations that left even conservative and liberal justices agreeing, and explaining their agreement in very simple language, that, once again, I'm just laughing.
There is nothing that says publishers can't make anything they want. I hope they do. I hope they make the raunchiest, bloodiest, most realistic blood and boob fest they possibly can. I want them to make a game where the player can see strippers and then get to kill them. That is their right to make any game they want. That's what freedom of speech is all about.
However, like porn, children should not have unrestricted access to it. If buying porn is not protected under freedom of speech for minors, how is this? And if kids are not allowed to buy porn, then the power to purchase is not free speech, is it?
So, rather than laughing, you should try reading. Rather than hurling insults you should counter what I'm actually saying and stop replying to comments I never made. (it's called a strawman)
But here... try this one for size. The rap band 2 Live Crew released an album years ago called "As Nasty as They Want to Be". It contained gems such as "Dick Almighty", "The Fuck Shop", "I Ain't Bullshit'in", "Me So Horny" and "Get The FUCK Out Of My House". It was an awesome album. I was a head banger at the time and I owned this album because it was that good. I can't tell you how many complaints I received from teh 2nd floor of my college dorm over this album. I lived on the eighth floor.
Even though a "clean" version of the album was created for kids and radio play, the explicit version of the album was called obscene by law and banned. It certainly was obscene, but why was it banned? Because kids could buy it. If kids were unable to purchase the explicit version of this album, 2 Live Crew could have gone before the Senate panel and told them, "What's the problem? It's against the law for kids to buy this album. It is for adults only. If adults can purchase actual video of porn, why can't adults buy an album with us black guys talking about porn?"
The point is that if children are not able to purchase violent video games, when the purity police go after video game manufacturers over violent or obscene video games with their "think of the children" argument, the game makers can tell them to get bent because kids can't buy the game. This actually frees video game makers to make any game they want without fear of parental groups coming down on them. So, if your concern is truly about the video game makers' rights, then you should be all for this law. As it stands, I think you are 12-yr-old who likes the idea of being able to do something without having to ask mommy for permission. It makes you feel like a big boy.
1. A five year old should not have $60 with which to buy a video game. Ever heard of Grandma? And if a 5-yr old could never buy a game without a parent there to pay for it, what is the harm in this law?
2. A five year old should not be playing video games with no parental supervision. Agreed. But if a parent won't get off his/her ass to go buy the game, what makes you think that hey will bother supervising? Kids with parents who won't bother to even look at the games their kids are buying are exactly the kids that shouldn't be playing them!
3. A five year old should not have access to a video game console without any parental controls See #2
4. A five year old would ALREADY BE UNABLE TO PURCHASE A VIOLENT VIDEO GAME because of the rating system already in place and the fact that stores abide by this policy. Do all stores have this policy? Same for movie theaters, right? When I was 13, I rode my bike to a video store (a new idea at the time) and rented Terminator (the very first one) on Betamax and took it home and watched it. My dad knew what I was doing and was OK with it, but the store clerk never asked or cared. Terminator was rated R, by the way.
It is clear that you don't understand the simple fact that the government limiting speech is a violation of the constitution.
Speech comes out of your mouth. It could be stretched to say that it is any kind of self expression. Purchasing a video game is not speech. Read my previous example where I said that if buying a video game is speech, why is a naked PETA protest NOT speech? Oh,wait! It is... unless you are a minor. So, either you agree that minors have free speech rights, meaning they can use their bodies as a tool for expression, of you have to admit that minors are not afforded the same Constitutional protections as adults. Also see my example where a government employee is allowed to tell kids not to speak. How is that NOT a violation of free speech.
You have also made it clear that your conservative values include expansion of government powers to review and limit the sale of video games.
Google "States Rights"
I assume that you want to pay for that rating agency with your taxes.
I don't live in California and don't care what they do.
You don't know what you're talking about, you don't know what a conservative is...
Sorry, but I don't think a 5-year old should be allowed to buy a game where the main character chops the heads of civilians with a shovel and soaks stray dogs in gasoline before setting them ablaze (Postal2). I'm willing to give some leeway and say it's OK if the parent buys it, buy Dammit! I want to know for certain that the parent is involved. I want to be absolutely sure that the parent is involved so we don't have another one of these oblivious parents using the excuse, "I didn't know what my yung'un was doin'." And, if the 5-yr old can buy the game, then the parent is free to use that excuse because the state has deemed that a child of any age is free and mature enough to make that decision without the parent's knowledge or consent.
As for this being a free speech issue. Bullshit! This is actually LESS of a free speech issue than child porn is. After all, if a child has free speech rights, then why can't a child, say, a 13 yr old girl, pose naked on the Internet? Seriously, how is playing a fucking video game MORE free speech than writing "Free Tibet" on a pair of a minor's chest and posting it on the Internet? Fact is, it's not. If a child has full Constitutional protection of Free Speech, then they should be allowed to truly express themselves. There is no exception clause in the Constitution. Either 5-yr old kids have 100% Constitutional protection or they don't. You can't say that buying a video game is free speech for a minor but getting naked for a PETA ad is not under any reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment, even if you think that "Free Speech" really means "Free Expression".
In other words, A CHILD'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE GRANTED THROUGH THEIR PARENTS, and even that has limits.
One more thought. If citizens are have the freedom of speech, then how can a school teacher, a government employee and representative of the government, tell a class room full of kids that they are not allowed to speak? How can a school board tell a child what to wear, have his hair and where to be and when? Kids are required to go to school by law, and they are required to be silenced from time to time. How is that NOT a violation of the First Amendment if minors have full Constitutional Protection.
This is not a conservative/liberal thing. This is a common sense thing. If parents are responsible for their kids, make parents be responsible for their kids?
Just give up trying to defend your ridiculous stance as bring ideologically in line with anything related to conseravtism and admit that you want the government to force everybody to abide by your morality.
Claiming that buying a video game is "Free Speech" is ridiculous. If buying a game is "Free Speech", then why isn't buying porn "Free Speech"? Why not cigarettes? Better yet, why is NOT buying health insurance not considered "Free Speech"? Making a game is free speech. Buying one is not.
As for forcing my morals on others, I'm not trying to force my morals on anyone. I'm trying to make parents be parents. Are parents responsible for their kids or not? I assume you agree that parents are responsible, then why not MAKE THEM RESPONSIBLE!?!!?
No one is saying that a kid can't play these games. I plan on doing all kinds of gaming with my kids... already do, for that matter. But since my kid is 4, we are limited to Wii Bowling and Kid's Fit. If I wanted him/her to play Call of Duty, then that's what we will be playing. What I don't want is for him/her to turn 10, start mowing lawns and going out and buying "Blow Up Your School w/ Yearbook Picture Upload and Modelling" or "Rape-a-Ho v4" without my knowledge. Yeah, I'll find out when he/she plugs it into the TV, which is in the family room, but not all parents are that attentive.
With liberty comes responsibility. If you don't have one, you can't have the other. This law takes the responsibility away from the parents and puts it in the hands of kids.
Right, and the alternative is telling all parents what they can and can't allow their children to buy. Don't delude yourself, banning children from buying these materials isn't likely to result in any shortage of such materials getting into the hands of children. Which presumably this is all about.
If the parent is OK with their kids owning this type of game, they can buy it for them. Just as if it is OK for a kid to smoke or view porn, the parent can purchase it for them. This is not about banning children from playing these games or even owning them. It's about forcing parents, or at least an adult, to be aware of what their kids are buying.
This is not about limiting what a kid may or may not play or see. This is about two things: 1) Forcing parents to make the decision of the materials their children have access to. 2) A state's right to decide what material is OK for children to purchase.
Are you suggesting the child should be in control? As a parent IT'S MY JOB TO BE IN CONTROL!
No, he's suggesting that the parents of children who aren't yours should be in control. However you are advocating having the government be in control, instead, completely undermining your capitalized declaration.
You don't realize this (or realize that this was the point the GP was making) because the law is trying to control other parents' children in the same way you would choose to control yours. And so by advocating that the government enforce your parenting decisions on others, you are trying to exercise the control you in the next post say should be held by the parents.
Now imagine the shoe were on the other foot, and that the law under consideration was based on how some other parent thought children should be raised that was different than yours. Now they're taking away your control, but not in a way you agree with. Still okay?
What you're implying is that I believe the state should make the decision and not the parents, or that I'm trying to make a parent's decision. Not true. If parents want to buy this type of game for their kids, I fully support them. I can't wait 'till my kid can play Call of Duty. This law would force parents to make the decisions and not leave the decision to the children of lazy, inattentive parents, or the zit-faced teenager running Game Stop. So, yeah, I have no problem with a law making parents be parents. If you strip away the parent's responsibility for their kids, you put that responsibility to someone else (the state, the store) or no one at all. The parents need to be responsible for their kids. This law would ensure that it is truly the parents that are responsible.
The way the California law was written was bad. It not only removed rights from minors, but put the burden of enforcement on the games industry and the individual stores. it was an impossible request for them to undertake
We certainly agree here. Since stores are not the only outlet for video games, how would distributors like Steam or even iTunes verify age?
Ultimately, it is up to the parents to do their job.
And part of that job should have been to purchase violent video games if you want your kids to have them.
It's not like this stuff is just plastered everywhere for free, the kids have to have the money and go into the store and buy it. Once they have bought it, they then have to take it home and either install it on a family owned PC or put it into the game console and play it on the family TV. Any parent who misses that is either not paying attention, or is a moron. In which case their kids are likely lost causes anyway, and this law would not have helped.
Kid: Dad, can I have $50 to go buy Bambi's Fairly Land Math Adventures? Parent: Huh, what? I'm watching the game. Go get me another beer. Kid: OK, here's your beer, dad. Can I get that math game. Bambi... something or another? Parent: Fine. Here's $60. Bring me home some smokes. I'm almost out and I'm too drunk to drive. Kid: They won't sell me cigarettes. I'm too young. Dad: I'll have your mother get me some on her way home from the club. Kid: She's not my mom, dad. She's a stripper who shacks up with us. Dad: Whatever. Go play it in your room so I don't have to hear it.
As opposed to: Kid: Dad, can I have $50 to go buy a game about school? But I need you there to buy it. Dad: Sure, let's go get it. (Later, at the store) Dad: What? This is "Shoot Up Your School 4" with the "Upload your yearbook" mod. I'm not buying you that! Kid: PLEASE-PLEASE-PLEASE!!! Dad: (Yes or No. You make up your own ending.)
The reason you like it is because you're the one in control, as with other things, it sure is shitty for the ones who aren't in control. Imagine if it wasn't in your control, but it was in the control of your neighbor, would you still like it?
Are you suggesting the child should be in control? As a parent IT'S MY JOB TO BE IN CONTROL!
How can you call yourself a conservative while at the same time supporting expansion of government power over the lives and speech of citizens? I think it might be time for you to look up what defines a real conservative.
This is a state's rights issue which falls in line perfectly with my conservative ideals. Supporting the SCOTUS on this would be a liberal thing.
Just a state may place limits on buying alcohol, pornography and cigarettes, I see no reason why a state may not place age restrictions on video games.
My first reason would be - because it doesn't seem to stop kids from getting their hands on it anyway. And oddly enough, the most common place for kids to sneak out booze/porn/ciggies from is... from their parents.;)
You are right. But that's the parent's responsibility. If you call buying something "free speech", then you strip that right away from parents.
As a side note, if making a purchase is protected under the First Amendment, wouldn't NOT making a purchase also be protected under the First Amendment? Would that make ObamaCare unConstitutional?
No, Obscenity is excluded so that parents and families don't have to deal with issues of trying to protect their kids from public displays and advertisements that include pornographic images.
If you feel that the government has any business deciding who can buy what games, you're not actually a conservative at all.
STATE governments. Not the FEDERAL government. I believe that STATES should have the right to determine what a child should and should not be allowed to purchase.
This is a state's rights issue which falls in line perfectly with my conservative beliefs.
The reason this was voted down is because the court says it violates the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech). Making a purchase is NOT an expression of Free Speech. If it is, I want to voice my opinion and go buy a big fat joint! Playing the game is not even a free speech issue.
MAKING the video game, however, absolutely is an expression of free speech. But that's not what was on trial here. What was on trial is "does the state have the limit the purchasing power of minors". I think it does.
And since this is NOT a free speech issue, then I feel that this ruling is a violation of the 10'th Amendment. The federal government has no business telling states what age people should be to do things, just as I feel the feds have no right to encourage (read, BLACKMAIL) states into making the drinking age 21.
Let me just say; Hear hear! Well done Supreme Court.
Our rights (ALL of them) are not to be given away to petty tyrants for any reason, even "For the Children".
As a fellow conservative, I must disagree. I see no problem with a state limiting what a minor may buy. Just a state may place limits on buying alcohol, pornography and cigarettes, I see no reason why a state may not place age restrictions on video games.
Note: No is saying that minors are not allowed to play these games, only to PURCHASE them. As a parent, I not only appreciate the idea that I would have to be the one to purchase the material, but I also like the idea that other parents would have to purchase the material for their kids. It's a parent's responsibility to keep up with what their kids are doing. This law would have helped a parent do that. As for the parents too lazy to get off their ass to buy the games? These are the same parents that won't monitor what their kids are doing and are EXACTLY the parents of the kids I don't want owning violent/pornographic video games.
With all that said, I would more than likely buy such games for my kids and even play them with them, but I like the idea of ME being in control.
It's a kind of self-preservation tactic. Usually by people who are insecure, selfish and opportunistic.
For example, in Australia I've noticed that there are a significant number of ethnic minority politicians who sign up with the larger right-wing parties who are always very anti-illegal immigrant/anti-asylum seeker etc.
I think of it as a kind of collaboration with the occupiers. Ally yourself with the all-powerful and suck up to them so that they don't persecute you as well.
If they came right out and said it, sure. But this took a relationship that was years old before I was allowed to see that part of their personalities, and even now, they apologize when it slips out. But if they are in a group and you're the "minority", they will gladly let loose among themselves. You don't have to sit through too many dinners as the only white guy before you hear open and honest discussion. This was not impress me. This was them bitching about illegals coming over the boarder, robbing houses and cars and then heading back where they can't be found. They tell me this happens all the time and there is nothing they can do about it. The Feds won't do anything and local police are literally not allowed to. This is why AZ passed this law.
Except that Sheriff Bubba-Joe has a history of having his officers stop every brown person they see, under the troll logic that "Non-Whites commit more crimes." Usually under the guise of wanting to see their drivers licence. And then, with this new law, they have to PROVE that they're not illegals, or the cop can arrest them on the spot for the crime of "possibly being illegal."
Evidently, you've never been to Arizona. Nearly 40% of the police officers there consider themselves to be Hispanic.
So, are you going to change your statement to read "Except that Sheriff Lupe-Jose has a history of..."? Why not? Why is it OK to assume that AZ Police officers are "Sheriff Bubba-Joe" when you thought they were all white and not OK when the Sheriff is Hispanic?
Sorry, buddy, I just proved that you are a racist. You are what you accuse others of. I guess that makes you a hypocrite too.
And you do realize that any cop can pull you over right now, demand to see you license, throw it in the ditch and arrest you for driving without one? He can then beat the crap out of you the back of the car and charge you with resisting arrest. While you lay in the back of his car, bleeding, he can "find" that missing girl's body in your trunk and have you on death row for murder. Why are you not suggesting that we do away with cops? After all, you are against this law because cops might use it to profile, even though profiling is explicitly prohibited by this very law. Why are you not against all laws because any law may be abused by any cop?
And again, you totally ignore that 40% of cops in AZ are Hispanic. Or do you think they are racists too?
I'm all for enforcing immigration laws (though I do believe it should be done at the federal level), but that does not mean stopping people for driving while dark-skinned and asking for their papers is anything less than inherent and frankly disgusting racism, codified into law.
Show me where that is written into the law. Someone has lied to you.
For the record, pulling someone over because based on looks is strictly forbidden in the law.
What tool mod'd this down to -1? This is precisely the problem with the law - you can't tell the difference between a legal and illegal immigrant just by looking at them, but that's exactly what the law requires.
Not exactly. The law requires you treat all Mexicans as Illegal Immigrants unless proven otherwise.
In addition, the giant "screw you, liberty" the rabid far right snuck in was the ability for private organizations (read: white supremacists) to sue the police if they don't feel they're harassing Latinos enough.
Please, quote me the exact portion of the law that requires all Mexicans to be treated as illegals until proven otherwise. I've read it and I can't find it. Was there an amendment I'm not aware of?
Or, if it's not in there, you are lying your fucking ass off and you think it's OK. You have literally made stuff up and convinced yourself that it is true to justify your opposition to the law. So, go read the law, and tell me where it says what you say it does or STFU.
Or, tell you what. Go to Arizona and walk up to a police officer. Odds are he will be Hispanic since Hispanics are the largest race in Arizona and be sure to let him know that he is a "white supremacists".
Slashdot Mirror
Ladies and gentlemen, I remind you about how well-documented this sort of thing is: the wheel of reincarnation. Personally, I'm betting that hardware is now so disposable that we'll eventually get to having our machines in one hunk of silicon, and the wheel will stall.
Exactly. I'll bet it will be called a "Tablet".
Actually, I envision the day when all phones will have a compatible interface that will allow for keyboards, mice and monitors to be hooked up to them. You take your "phone" to work, plug it in, do work. Pull it out, browse the web on your way home and plug it into your dock at home where you play games or whatever it is you do with your current PC at home. You go and visit your buddy and want to show him some new whiz-bang-app you have, you plug your phone into his dock and use your pc/phone as you did at home and work.
When ARM processors become comparable to the current x86's we use in our PC's, the above scenario is not at all implausible. The Motorola Atrix is an example of this in action, but it is too slow and expensive to be practical. Once the ARM is fast enough and if phone manufacturers can agree on a dock standard and third parties get involved in making the docks, your phone will push your PC out of you home and office. And like you said, cell phone hardware is more or less disposable.
Context can only twist the meaning so much. When the bible says that we should stone a woman to death because she was raped
John 8, 1-11
1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
You have now been educated.
So in essence what you are saying is that you refuse to read the justices' opinions in the recent decision, you refuse to read established case law, you refuse to accept the classification of video games as speech, and you support the expansion of government power over citizens at the expense of the taxpayer... yet somehow you expect me to believe that you are actually an ideological conservative who is capable of a rational discussion? I'm sorry but I have given you the benefit of the doubt for long enough. I'm done here.
You claim that I can't have a rational discussion, but you refuse to even acknowledge my point. My point is that free speech rights are limited when it comes to children, and even some adults. All branches of government have upheld this. The 14th Amendments states that all citizens are afforded equal protection and rights under the law, yet an 20 year old war vet may not buy a beer. A 12-yr old may not buy a Penthouse. A 16-yr old may not buy a bong. There are age limits on all kinds of things, even for adults. So if those are not in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, as the Justices cited, then how is this a violation? That's the one question you keep ignoring because you simply can't answer it.
I'm OK with video games being speech. Just as I'm OK with pornography being speech or a 2 Live Crew album being speech. However, even speech has its limits when it comes to children. I don't know how many times I need to say it, but let's try it in bold to see if it soaks in:
IF A COMMUNITY OR STATE MAY LIMIT A KID'S "RIGHT" TO PURCHASE PORNOGRAPHY, THEN THE SAME COMMUNITY OR STATE MAY LIMIT A CHILD'S RIGHT TO PURCHASE A VIDEO GAME.
Yes, they are both speech. I'll even say that making a video game and making a porn are both speech. But a community has the right to impose age requirements to purchase them.
So, answer my question. If a community can limit how much pornography a 10 yr old may purchase, why can they not limit what video games a child may purchase? What is the difference?
To be honest, I see no more need to respond to your facile example than to respond to allegations that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater constitute free speech.
Right. Because yelling fire in a crowded theater is a threat to safety. Making kids respect quite time is not a public safety issue.
And, your quote lays out a good explanation as to why public school is needed, but does nothing to explain why a child has free speech rights over his/her parent's wishes, yet has no free speech rights when confronted by a government official. The only valid explanation is that children have limited free speech rights.
You keep looking at this as a ruling on a child's right to purchase video games. That is not an example of speech.
RIGHT! That's what I've been saying. A child's purchasing power is not a free speech issue.
What is considered speech, as was supported by the Supreme Court, is the publication of a video game.
And here is where I feel the court, or at least those defending the California law screwed up. There was nothing in the law that prevented the publication of a video game. There was nothing in the law that prevented a publisher from marketing their game to children. The only thing the law did was prevent children from purchasing them WITHOUT A PARENT. That "without a parent" is the critical portion. There was nothing to prevent children from owning the game or even playing it. The law was to prevent children from purchasing the game without parental consent.
What is considered speech, as was supported by the Supreme Court, is the publication of a video game. If you could tell me why video games should not be considered speech in the way that literature, movies, music, or any other type of media are, I suppose I might agree that the government would be within its mandate to regulate them. However, as the Supreme Court ruled that video games fall under the umbrella of speech, they are protected by the first amendment.
Nope. Exactly the same. And in the same way that a child may not buy a Penthouse Magazine from the corner store, they should not be able to purchase a video game with content designated for adults only.
Now if you can tell me why a child should not be allowed to purchase a DVD of "Riding Ms. Daisy" but be allowed to purchase Postal2, I'm all ears. Like you said, these forms of media should be treated the same. If a video game is rated to be for adults only, then only adults should be allowed to purchase it, exactly how other adults only material is handled today. While I don't know if it's a national law or not, but where I live, it is illegal to even show a kid pornography, much less sell it to one. Giving a kid the latest Oui mag will get you put on the predator's list.
Pushing all of that aside, however, you are still a shitty conservative for wanting to cede the rights of citizens to choose what type of media to consume to the government.
Nope, still state's rights. If a community wants to keep strip clubs out of their community or away from school kids, which many do with no Constitutional issues, I'm OK with that. And, just as a community may want to keep kids out of strip clubs or strip clubs a respectable distance from schools, I see no problems with a community making that decision for themselves. On the flip side, if a community wanted their school kids to take a field strip to the local "adult book store", I'm OK with that too. That's what state's rights are all about. I have a whole lot more power swaying my city hall or state capitol that I do with the Supreme Court of the United States. That's why this is a conservative, state's rights issue.
Firstly, "states' rights" refers to, and I quote, "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States." As curtailing free speech, which includes production and publication of video games (as found in this case,) is expressly prohibited by the first amendment, I don't understand why you think that states' rights is even an applicable term here.
Fine. Apply this to my teacher telling her students to be quiet example. A teacher is a government employee. Wouldn't you consider a government employee telling citizens to not speak to violate free speech? When you can how this is allowed, we'll move on to you next point.
Also, it made me laugh when I realized that you haven't picked up on the fact that this isn't about a child's right to purchase a video game, it's about video game publishers' right to publish video games similar to the manner in which book publishers and movie publishers and music publishers make their respective media available to the market at large, without the work being ghettoized as somehow not speech and therefore to be regulated by the government. You are so myopic and unable to understand simple situations that left even conservative and liberal justices agreeing, and explaining their agreement in very simple language, that, once again, I'm just laughing.
There is nothing that says publishers can't make anything they want. I hope they do. I hope they make the raunchiest, bloodiest, most realistic blood and boob fest they possibly can. I want them to make a game where the player can see strippers and then get to kill them. That is their right to make any game they want. That's what freedom of speech is all about.
However, like porn, children should not have unrestricted access to it. If buying porn is not protected under freedom of speech for minors, how is this? And if kids are not allowed to buy porn, then the power to purchase is not free speech, is it?
So, rather than laughing, you should try reading. Rather than hurling insults you should counter what I'm actually saying and stop replying to comments I never made. (it's called a strawman)
But here... try this one for size. The rap band 2 Live Crew released an album years ago called "As Nasty as They Want to Be". It contained gems such as "Dick Almighty", "The Fuck Shop", "I Ain't Bullshit'in", "Me So Horny" and "Get The FUCK Out Of My House". It was an awesome album. I was a head banger at the time and I owned this album because it was that good. I can't tell you how many complaints I received from teh 2nd floor of my college dorm over this album. I lived on the eighth floor.
Even though a "clean" version of the album was created for kids and radio play, the explicit version of the album was called obscene by law and banned. It certainly was obscene, but why was it banned? Because kids could buy it. If kids were unable to purchase the explicit version of this album, 2 Live Crew could have gone before the Senate panel and told them, "What's the problem? It's against the law for kids to buy this album. It is for adults only. If adults can purchase actual video of porn, why can't adults buy an album with us black guys talking about porn?"
The point is that if children are not able to purchase violent video games, when the purity police go after video game manufacturers over violent or obscene video games with their "think of the children" argument, the game makers can tell them to get bent because kids can't buy the game. This actually frees video game makers to make any game they want without fear of parental groups coming down on them. So, if your concern is truly about the video game makers' rights, then you should be all for this law. As it stands, I think you are 12-yr-old who likes the idea of being able to do something without having to ask mommy for permission. It makes you feel like a big boy.
1. A five year old should not have $60 with which to buy a video game.
Ever heard of Grandma? And if a 5-yr old could never buy a game without a parent there to pay for it, what is the harm in this law?
2. A five year old should not be playing video games with no parental supervision.
Agreed. But if a parent won't get off his/her ass to go buy the game, what makes you think that hey will bother supervising? Kids with parents who won't bother to even look at the games their kids are buying are exactly the kids that shouldn't be playing them!
3. A five year old should not have access to a video game console without any parental controls
See #2
4. A five year old would ALREADY BE UNABLE TO PURCHASE A VIOLENT VIDEO GAME because of the rating system already in place and the fact that stores abide by this policy.
Do all stores have this policy? Same for movie theaters, right? When I was 13, I rode my bike to a video store (a new idea at the time) and rented Terminator (the very first one) on Betamax and took it home and watched it. My dad knew what I was doing and was OK with it, but the store clerk never asked or cared. Terminator was rated R, by the way.
It is clear that you don't understand the simple fact that the government limiting speech is a violation of the constitution.
Speech comes out of your mouth. It could be stretched to say that it is any kind of self expression. Purchasing a video game is not speech. Read my previous example where I said that if buying a video game is speech, why is a naked PETA protest NOT speech? Oh ,wait! It is... unless you are a minor. So, either you agree that minors have free speech rights, meaning they can use their bodies as a tool for expression, of you have to admit that minors are not afforded the same Constitutional protections as adults. Also see my example where a government employee is allowed to tell kids not to speak. How is that NOT a violation of free speech.
You have also made it clear that your conservative values include expansion of government powers to review and limit the sale of video games.
Google "States Rights"
I assume that you want to pay for that rating agency with your taxes.
I don't live in California and don't care what they do.
You don't know what you're talking about, you don't know what a conservative is...
Oh for Pete's sake. Click here.
Sorry, but I don't think a 5-year old should be allowed to buy a game where the main character chops the heads of civilians with a shovel and soaks stray dogs in gasoline before setting them ablaze (Postal2). I'm willing to give some leeway and say it's OK if the parent buys it, buy Dammit! I want to know for certain that the parent is involved. I want to be absolutely sure that the parent is involved so we don't have another one of these oblivious parents using the excuse, "I didn't know what my yung'un was doin'." And, if the 5-yr old can buy the game, then the parent is free to use that excuse because the state has deemed that a child of any age is free and mature enough to make that decision without the parent's knowledge or consent.
As for this being a free speech issue. Bullshit! This is actually LESS of a free speech issue than child porn is. After all, if a child has free speech rights, then why can't a child, say, a 13 yr old girl, pose naked on the Internet? Seriously, how is playing a fucking video game MORE free speech than writing "Free Tibet" on a pair of a minor's chest and posting it on the Internet? Fact is, it's not. If a child has full Constitutional protection of Free Speech, then they should be allowed to truly express themselves. There is no exception clause in the Constitution. Either 5-yr old kids have 100% Constitutional protection or they don't. You can't say that buying a video game is free speech for a minor but getting naked for a PETA ad is not under any reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment, even if you think that "Free Speech" really means "Free Expression".
In other words, A CHILD'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE GRANTED THROUGH THEIR PARENTS, and even that has limits.
One more thought. If citizens are have the freedom of speech, then how can a school teacher, a government employee and representative of the government, tell a class room full of kids that they are not allowed to speak? How can a school board tell a child what to wear, have his hair and where to be and when? Kids are required to go to school by law, and they are required to be silenced from time to time. How is that NOT a violation of the First Amendment if minors have full Constitutional Protection.
This is not a conservative/liberal thing. This is a common sense thing. If parents are responsible for their kids, make parents be responsible for their kids?
Just give up trying to defend your ridiculous stance as bring ideologically in line with anything related to conseravtism and admit that you want the government to force everybody to abide by your morality.
Claiming that buying a video game is "Free Speech" is ridiculous. If buying a game is "Free Speech", then why isn't buying porn "Free Speech"? Why not cigarettes? Better yet, why is NOT buying health insurance not considered "Free Speech"? Making a game is free speech. Buying one is not.
As for forcing my morals on others, I'm not trying to force my morals on anyone. I'm trying to make parents be parents. Are parents responsible for their kids or not? I assume you agree that parents are responsible, then why not MAKE THEM RESPONSIBLE!?!!?
No one is saying that a kid can't play these games. I plan on doing all kinds of gaming with my kids... already do, for that matter. But since my kid is 4, we are limited to Wii Bowling and Kid's Fit. If I wanted him/her to play Call of Duty, then that's what we will be playing. What I don't want is for him/her to turn 10, start mowing lawns and going out and buying "Blow Up Your School w/ Yearbook Picture Upload and Modelling" or "Rape-a-Ho v4" without my knowledge. Yeah, I'll find out when he/she plugs it into the TV, which is in the family room, but not all parents are that attentive.
With liberty comes responsibility. If you don't have one, you can't have the other. This law takes the responsibility away from the parents and puts it in the hands of kids.
Right, and the alternative is telling all parents what they can and can't allow their children to buy. Don't delude yourself, banning children from buying these materials isn't likely to result in any shortage of such materials getting into the hands of children. Which presumably this is all about.
If the parent is OK with their kids owning this type of game, they can buy it for them. Just as if it is OK for a kid to smoke or view porn, the parent can purchase it for them. This is not about banning children from playing these games or even owning them. It's about forcing parents, or at least an adult, to be aware of what their kids are buying.
This is not about limiting what a kid may or may not play or see. This is about two things:
1) Forcing parents to make the decision of the materials their children have access to.
2) A state's right to decide what material is OK for children to purchase.
Are you suggesting the child should be in control? As a parent IT'S MY JOB TO BE IN CONTROL!
No, he's suggesting that the parents of children who aren't yours should be in control. However you are advocating having the government be in control, instead, completely undermining your capitalized declaration.
You don't realize this (or realize that this was the point the GP was making) because the law is trying to control other parents' children in the same way you would choose to control yours. And so by advocating that the government enforce your parenting decisions on others, you are trying to exercise the control you in the next post say should be held by the parents.
Now imagine the shoe were on the other foot, and that the law under consideration was based on how some other parent thought children should be raised that was different than yours. Now they're taking away your control, but not in a way you agree with. Still okay?
What you're implying is that I believe the state should make the decision and not the parents, or that I'm trying to make a parent's decision. Not true. If parents want to buy this type of game for their kids, I fully support them. I can't wait 'till my kid can play Call of Duty. This law would force parents to make the decisions and not leave the decision to the children of lazy, inattentive parents, or the zit-faced teenager running Game Stop. So, yeah, I have no problem with a law making parents be parents. If you strip away the parent's responsibility for their kids, you put that responsibility to someone else (the state, the store) or no one at all. The parents need to be responsible for their kids. This law would ensure that it is truly the parents that are responsible.
The way the California law was written was bad. It not only removed rights from minors, but put the burden of enforcement on the games industry and the individual stores. it was an impossible request for them to undertake
We certainly agree here. Since stores are not the only outlet for video games, how would distributors like Steam or even iTunes verify age?
Ultimately, it is up to the parents to do their job.
And part of that job should have been to purchase violent video games if you want your kids to have them.
It's not like this stuff is just plastered everywhere for free, the kids have to have the money and go into the store and buy it. Once they have bought it, they then have to take it home and either install it on a family owned PC or put it into the game console and play it on the family TV. Any parent who misses that is either not paying attention, or is a moron. In which case their kids are likely lost causes anyway, and this law would not have helped.
Kid: Dad, can I have $50 to go buy Bambi's Fairly Land Math Adventures?
Parent: Huh, what? I'm watching the game. Go get me another beer.
Kid: OK, here's your beer, dad. Can I get that math game. Bambi... something or another?
Parent: Fine. Here's $60. Bring me home some smokes. I'm almost out and I'm too drunk to drive.
Kid: They won't sell me cigarettes. I'm too young.
Dad: I'll have your mother get me some on her way home from the club.
Kid: She's not my mom, dad. She's a stripper who shacks up with us.
Dad: Whatever. Go play it in your room so I don't have to hear it.
As opposed to:
Kid: Dad, can I have $50 to go buy a game about school? But I need you there to buy it.
Dad: Sure, let's go get it.
(Later, at the store)
Dad: What? This is "Shoot Up Your School 4" with the "Upload your yearbook" mod. I'm not buying you that!
Kid: PLEASE-PLEASE-PLEASE!!!
Dad: (Yes or No. You make up your own ending.)
The reason you like it is because you're the one in control, as with other things, it sure is shitty for the ones who aren't in control. Imagine if it wasn't in your control, but it was in the control of your neighbor, would you still like it?
Are you suggesting the child should be in control? As a parent IT'S MY JOB TO BE IN CONTROL!
How can you call yourself a conservative while at the same time supporting expansion of government power over the lives and speech of citizens? I think it might be time for you to look up what defines a real conservative.
This is a state's rights issue which falls in line perfectly with my conservative ideals. Supporting the SCOTUS on this would be a liberal thing.
Just a state may place limits on buying alcohol, pornography and cigarettes, I see no reason why a state may not place age restrictions on video games.
My first reason would be - because it doesn't seem to stop kids from getting their hands on it anyway. And oddly enough, the most common place for kids to sneak out booze/porn/ciggies from is... from their parents. ;)
You are right. But that's the parent's responsibility. If you call buying something "free speech", then you strip that right away from parents.
As a side note, if making a purchase is protected under the First Amendment, wouldn't NOT making a purchase also be protected under the First Amendment? Would that make ObamaCare unConstitutional?
No, Obscenity is excluded so that parents and families don't have to deal with issues of trying to protect their kids from public displays and advertisements that include pornographic images.
How about if I market porn as a video game?
Just a state may place limits on buying alcohol, pornography and cigarettes
None of which are protected by the first amendment, BTW.
And buying video games is? I could see how MAKING a video game is protected by the first, but buying one?
If you feel that the government has any business deciding who can buy what games, you're not actually a conservative at all.
STATE governments. Not the FEDERAL government. I believe that STATES should have the right to determine what a child should and should not be allowed to purchase.
This is a state's rights issue which falls in line perfectly with my conservative beliefs.
The reason this was voted down is because the court says it violates the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech). Making a purchase is NOT an expression of Free Speech. If it is, I want to voice my opinion and go buy a big fat joint! Playing the game is not even a free speech issue.
MAKING the video game, however, absolutely is an expression of free speech. But that's not what was on trial here. What was on trial is "does the state have the limit the purchasing power of minors". I think it does.
And since this is NOT a free speech issue, then I feel that this ruling is a violation of the 10'th Amendment. The federal government has no business telling states what age people should be to do things, just as I feel the feds have no right to encourage (read, BLACKMAIL) states into making the drinking age 21.
The court said that parents should filter what their children see and do. Score one against the nanny state monitoring us for our own good.
If a parent won't get off their ass to buy the games for their kids, this parent won't monitor what their kids see and do.
Let me just say; Hear hear! Well done Supreme Court.
Our rights (ALL of them) are not to be given away to petty tyrants for any reason, even "For the Children".
As a fellow conservative, I must disagree. I see no problem with a state limiting what a minor may buy. Just a state may place limits on buying alcohol, pornography and cigarettes, I see no reason why a state may not place age restrictions on video games.
Note: No is saying that minors are not allowed to play these games, only to PURCHASE them. As a parent, I not only appreciate the idea that I would have to be the one to purchase the material, but I also like the idea that other parents would have to purchase the material for their kids. It's a parent's responsibility to keep up with what their kids are doing. This law would have helped a parent do that. As for the parents too lazy to get off their ass to buy the games? These are the same parents that won't monitor what their kids are doing and are EXACTLY the parents of the kids I don't want owning violent/pornographic video games.
With all that said, I would more than likely buy such games for my kids and even play them with them, but I like the idea of ME being in control.
It's a kind of self-preservation tactic. Usually by people who are insecure, selfish and opportunistic.
For example, in Australia I've noticed that there are a significant number of ethnic minority politicians who sign up with the larger right-wing parties who are always very anti-illegal immigrant/anti-asylum seeker etc.
I think of it as a kind of collaboration with the occupiers. Ally yourself with the all-powerful and suck up to them so that they don't persecute you as well.
If they came right out and said it, sure. But this took a relationship that was years old before I was allowed to see that part of their personalities, and even now, they apologize when it slips out. But if they are in a group and you're the "minority", they will gladly let loose among themselves. You don't have to sit through too many dinners as the only white guy before you hear open and honest discussion. This was not impress me. This was them bitching about illegals coming over the boarder, robbing houses and cars and then heading back where they can't be found. They tell me this happens all the time and there is nothing they can do about it. The Feds won't do anything and local police are literally not allowed to. This is why AZ passed this law.
Except that Sheriff Bubba-Joe has a history of having his officers stop every brown person they see, under the troll logic that "Non-Whites commit more crimes." Usually under the guise of wanting to see their drivers licence. And then, with this new law, they have to PROVE that they're not illegals, or the cop can arrest them on the spot for the crime of "possibly being illegal."
Evidently, you've never been to Arizona. Nearly 40% of the police officers there consider themselves to be Hispanic.
So, are you going to change your statement to read "Except that Sheriff Lupe-Jose has a history of..."? Why not? Why is it OK to assume that AZ Police officers are "Sheriff Bubba-Joe" when you thought they were all white and not OK when the Sheriff is Hispanic?
Sorry, buddy, I just proved that you are a racist. You are what you accuse others of. I guess that makes you a hypocrite too.
And you do realize that any cop can pull you over right now, demand to see you license, throw it in the ditch and arrest you for driving without one? He can then beat the crap out of you the back of the car and charge you with resisting arrest. While you lay in the back of his car, bleeding, he can "find" that missing girl's body in your trunk and have you on death row for murder. Why are you not suggesting that we do away with cops? After all, you are against this law because cops might use it to profile, even though profiling is explicitly prohibited by this very law. Why are you not against all laws because any law may be abused by any cop?
And again, you totally ignore that 40% of cops in AZ are Hispanic. Or do you think they are racists too?
I'm all for enforcing immigration laws (though I do believe it should be done at the federal level), but that does not mean stopping people for driving while dark-skinned and asking for their papers is anything less than inherent and frankly disgusting racism, codified into law.
Show me where that is written into the law. Someone has lied to you.
For the record, pulling someone over because based on looks is strictly forbidden in the law.
What tool mod'd this down to -1? This is precisely the problem with the law - you can't tell the difference between a legal and illegal immigrant just by looking at them, but that's exactly what the law requires.
Not exactly. The law requires you treat all Mexicans as Illegal Immigrants unless proven otherwise.
In addition, the giant "screw you, liberty" the rabid far right snuck in was the ability for private organizations (read: white supremacists) to sue the police if they don't feel they're harassing Latinos enough.
Please, quote me the exact portion of the law that requires all Mexicans to be treated as illegals until proven otherwise. I've read it and I can't find it. Was there an amendment I'm not aware of?
Or, if it's not in there, you are lying your fucking ass off and you think it's OK. You have literally made stuff up and convinced yourself that it is true to justify your opposition to the law. So, go read the law, and tell me where it says what you say it does or STFU.
Or, tell you what. Go to Arizona and walk up to a police officer. Odds are he will be Hispanic since Hispanics are the largest race in Arizona and be sure to let him know that he is a "white supremacists".
He won't be so supportive when he gets asked for papers because he is a mexican. The issue with SB1070 is racial profiling. That is the issue.
You mean like when he gets pulled over and the police man asks for his driver's license? Yeah, that never happens to white people.