The Gamer Petition: Supporting First Amendment Rights for Video Games [Archive]

View Full Version : The Gamer Petition: Supporting First Amendment Rights for Video Games

Amnerys

08-05-2010, 09:19 PM

If you are an American citizen, believe that video games should be covered under the First Amendment, and you would like to have your voice heard, please consider signing The Gamer Petition.<a href="http://everquest2.com/news/read/082010/3641" target="_blank">Read More</a>

Carthr

08-06-2010, 11:21 AM

Sure... I'll sign it if you stop censoring everything everyone says.. You want me to sign something protecting your first amendment rights, while taking mine away... Pretty hypocritical..

Zorastiz

08-06-2010, 12:17 PM

Shotneedle

08-06-2010, 01:59 PM

Powers

08-06-2010, 04:36 PM

Wait, you guys want a forum where people can say anything they want to?Funny, I've found such places to be cesspools of the very worst humanity has to offer its fellow man. Certainly they aren't places that are conducive to mature discussion, because inevitably someone comes in and starts in on the expletive-laden ad hominems and makes everyone feel like they're wasting their time.A little moderation helps make things a lot easier on everyone (except the dim bulbs who just like to type expletives in an open forum, that is).Powers &8^]

Tylia

08-06-2010, 07:17 PM

There isn't enough information about the upcoming Supreme court case in the linked article, or in the article that is linked from that. I won't sign a petition unless I know exactly what it is for and exactly what it relates to. If more information were provided on the actual case that will be going before the court instead of just "If you are an American citizen..." jargon, I might be motivated to sign.

Kosh

08-06-2010, 07:47 PM

colonel75thr

08-06-2010, 08:30 PM

This is a joke right?

SlashnGut

08-08-2010, 02:07 AM

<cite>Tylia@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>There isn't enough information about the upcoming Supreme court case in the linked article, or in the article that is linked from that. I won't sign a petition unless I know exactly what it is for and exactly what it relates to. If more information were provided on the actual case that will be going before the court instead of just "If you are an American citizen..." jargon, I might be motivated to sign.</blockquote>They gave the name of the case. It honestly is not hard to look up a case and see what is going on. While yes they could have provided more information I personally would want to verify what they said. If you just go off what they say then you are doing yourself a disservice as you have no way of knowing if what they said is true or not. Do a bit of research. You can go to the below link to see a lot more abt it than what is shown on the actual petition site:<a href="http://gamepolitics.com/2010/07/14/more-california%E2%80%99s-scotus-brief">http://gamepolitics.com/2010/07/14/...9s-scotus-brief</a>

halloweene

08-15-2010, 09:41 AM

i have a question : first amendment only concerns US citizens, what about other countries laws?

Bosconi

08-15-2010, 02:23 PM

<cite>Powers wrote:</cite><blockquote>Wait, you guys want a forum where people can say anything they want to?Funny, I've found such places to be cesspools of the very worst humanity has to offer its fellow man. Certainly they aren't places that are conducive to mature discussion, because inevitably someone comes in and starts in on the expletive-laden ad hominems and makes everyone feel like they're wasting their time.A little moderation helps make things a lot easier on everyone (except the dim bulbs who just like to type expletives in an open forum, that is).Powers &8^]</blockquote>QFE. =]

Nuhus

08-15-2010, 04:11 PM

Wow. The gamer petition website does not give much info at all about it. You know what? I don't care after reading about it.I suppose you couldn't sell EQ2 to minors, I'm also sure parents could buy the game for them.They aren't trying to censor games, if that were the case I would agree. And if fluffy bunny play time is what they have to pander to to be sure and get the kiddy market they just have a choice to make them for kids or adults. I'm personally ok with playing a game not targetted for small kids like EQ2 is heading.

Amise

08-15-2010, 04:20 PM

"Gamer Petition" is really a misnomer here.It's more like a "Game Company Petition".You're setting it up as something gamers need to do to protect their rights, when in reality it's just game companies getting worried they might have a hard time selling violent games.I don't like this. Not signing.

Nuhus

08-15-2010, 05:21 PM

The linked website is owned by crest group LLC, the phone number for them, Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association (<a href="http://www.entmerch.org/" target="_blank">http://www.entmerch.org/</a>)What is EMA? The Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) is the not-for-profit international trade association dedicated to advancing the interests of the $33 billion home entertainment industry. EMA's mission is to promote, protect, and provide a forum for the common business interests of those engaged in the sale, rental, and licensed reproduction of entertainment software such as DVDs and video games. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Entertainment_Merchants_Association" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intera...nts_Association</a> <a href="http://onthedocket.org/cases/2009/schwarzenegger-v-ema" target="_blank">http://onthedocket.org/cases/2009/s...rzenegger-v-ema</a>

Eritius

08-15-2010, 05:37 PM

<cite>Carthrax wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sure... I'll sign it if you stop censoring everything everyone says.. You want me to sign something protecting your first amendment rights, while taking mine away... Pretty hypocritical..</blockquote>4Chan is that way ------------>Sorry its not hypocritical as you call it. This is their boards they decide what their guests/customers/clients whatever you want to call yourself can say. Its like you don't get 'freedom of speach' in my house. And since you don't appear to be able to see the difference, let me spell out what this petition is actually for.If this goes through that video games are not covered by the 1st Amendment, then the government will have control over what content is in our video games. That means no violence, nothing that could be offensive, and nothing that is sexually themed. How does this affect EQ2? Antonia would be getting a new modest model. Necromancers could be removed from the game, and combat would be less exciting (think the laser beams in Gi Joe).This has nothing to do with what you can and cannot say in a forum. Sorry you missed that by half a mile.

Nuhus

08-15-2010, 11:56 PM

I had trouble finding the part in the law that says you can't make a game if it's too violent. Wheres that in the cali law?

Carthr

08-16-2010, 02:26 AM

People like their Koolaid...

Winter

08-16-2010, 04:35 AM

Signed by the both of us. First Amendment!!! WOOOOT!

ke'la

08-16-2010, 05:40 AM

<cite>Nuhus wrote:</cite><blockquote>I had trouble finding the part in the law that says you can't make a game if it's too violent. Wheres that in the cali law?</blockquote>Ask Jack Tomson.If you give an inch of your rights away, the goverment will take it all away eventually. Look at what happened to Smokers,and what is in the proccess of happening to Fast Food. It is just a matter of time befor those that "Know whats best for you" on BOTH SIDES of the political spectrum are taking everything away from you. The sooner you act to stop it the better for everyone.BTW, like others have said, a forum is like getting together at someone's house if the house owner doesn't like what you are saying they are fully with-in thier rights to ask you to stop talking about that, or kick you out.

Nuhus

08-16-2010, 06:37 AM

<cite>kela wrote:</cite><blockquote>{0}</blockquote>(Don't know why the forum can't quote you <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /> )I could get behind it if I felt there was any real intereference. Film is protected, but you know what? There is an age requirement for adult material. I don't see the difference. I can't say I support this. It's in the gaming industries best interest if they can sell violent games to kids under 18. Sure, but it only goes as far as sale. You have to be 18 to buy it, but not to play.I feel it is just the video game makers financial interest and posing it as a first amendment issue to support their pocket books. If a site like "The Gamer Petition" doesn't even show what the law is and the issues with it, as well as seemingly tied to the EMA which interest is revenue for game companies. It just doesn't interest me. I doubt many that followed the link actually read the law in question.Really the only issue I have with it is the bill was introduced implying games have a connection to violence in real life.08-1448 SCHWARZENEGGER V. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTSASSOCIATIONDECISION BELOW: 556 F.3d 950CERT. GRANTED 4/26/2010QUESTION PRESENTED:California Civil Code sections 1746-1746.5 prohibit the sale of violent video games tominors under 18 where a reasonable person would find that the violent content appealsto a deviant or morbid interest of minors, is patently offensive to prevailing communitystandards as to what is suitable for minors, and causes the game as a whole to lackserious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. The respondent industrygroups challenged this prohibition on its face as violating the Free Speech Clause of theFirst Amendment. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's judgmentpermanently enjoining enforcement of the prohibition. The questions presented are: 1.Does the First Amendment bar a state from restricting the sale of violent video gamesto minors? 2. If the First Amendment applies to violent video games that are sold tominors, and the standard of review is strict scrutiny, under Turner BroadcastingSystem, Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 666 (1994), is the state required to demonstratea direct causal link between violent video games and physical and psychological harmto minors before the state can prohibit the sale of the games to minors?LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-16620<pre>CALIFORNIA CODESCIVIL CODESECTION 1746-1746.51746. For purposes of this title, the following definitions shallapply: (a) "Minor" means any natural person who is under 18 years of age. (b) "Person" means any natural person, partnership, firm,association, corporation, limited liability company, or other legalentity. (c) "Video game" means any electronic amusement device thatutilizes a computer, microprocessor, or similar electronic circuitryand its own monitor, or is designed to be used with a television setor a computer monitor, that interacts with the user of the device. (d) (1) "Violent video game" means a video game in which the rangeof options available to a player includes killing, maiming,dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, ifthose acts are depicted in the game in a manner that does either ofthe following: (A) Comes within all of the following descriptions: (i) A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, wouldfind appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors. (ii) It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in thecommunity as to what is suitable for minors. (iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary,artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. (B) Enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury uponimages of human beings or characters with substantially humancharacteristics in a manner which is especially heinous, cruel, ordepraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to thevictim. (2) For purposes of this subdivision, the following definitionsapply: (A) "Cruel" means that the player intends to virtually inflict ahigh degree of pain by torture or serious physical abuse of thevictim in addition to killing the victim. (B) "Depraved" means that the player relishes the virtual killingor shows indifference to the suffering of the victim, as evidenced bytorture or serious physical abuse of the victim. (C) "Heinous" means shockingly atrocious. For the killing depictedin a video game to be heinous, it must involve additional acts oftorture or serious physical abuse of the victim as set apart fromother killings. (D) "Serious physical abuse" means a significant or considerableamount of injury or damage to the victim's body which involves asubstantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain,substantial disfigurement, or substantial impairment of the functionof a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. Serious physical abuse,unlike torture, does not require that the victim be conscious of theabuse at the time it is inflicted. However, the player mustspecifically intend the abuse apart from the killing. (E) "Torture" includes mental as well as physical abuse of thevictim. In either case, the virtual victim must be conscious of theabuse at the time it is inflicted; and the player must specificallyintend to virtually inflict severe mental or physical pain orsuffering upon the victim, apart from killing the victim. (3) Pertinent factors in determining whether a killing depicted ina video game is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved includeinfliction of gratuitous violence upon the victim beyond thatnecessary to commit the killing, needless mutilation of the victim'sbody, and helplessness of the victim.1746.1. (a) A person may not sell or rent a video game that hasbeen labeled as a violent video game to a minor. (b) Proof that a defendant, or his or her employee or agent,demanded, was shown, and reasonably relied upon evidence that apurchaser or renter of a violent video game was not a minor or thatthe manufacturer failed to label a violent video game as requiredpursuant to Section 1746.2 shall be an affirmative defense to anyaction brought pursuant to this title. That evidence may include, butis not limited to, a driver's license or an identification cardissued to the purchaser or renter by a state or by the Armed Forcesof the United States. (c) This section shall not apply if the violent video game is soldor rented to a minor by the minor's parent, grandparent, aunt,uncle, or legal guardian.1746.2. Each violent video game that is imported into ordistributed in California for retail sale shall be labeled with asolid white "18" outlined in black. The "18" shall have dimensions ofno less than 2 inches by 2 inches. The "18" shall be displayed onthe front face of the video game package.1746.3. Any person who violates any provision of this title shallbe liable in an amount of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or alesser amount as determined by the court. However, this liabilityshall not apply to any person who violates those provisions if he orshe is employed solely in the capacity of a salesclerk or other,similar position and he or she does not have an ownership interest inthe business in which the violation occurred and is not employed asa manager in that business.1746.4. A suspected violation of this title may be reported to acity attorney, county counsel, or district attorney by a parent,legal guardian, or other adult acting on behalf of a minor to whom aviolent video game has been sold or rented. A violation of this titlemay be prosecuted by any city attorney, county counsel, or districtattorney.1746.5. The provisions of this title are severable. If anyprovision of this title or its application is held to be invalid,that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applicationsthat can be given effect without the invalid provision orapplication.</pre>

ke'la

08-16-2010, 03:31 PM

<cite>Nuhus wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kela wrote:</cite><blockquote>{0}</blockquote>(Don't know why the forum can't quote you <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /> )I could get behind it if I felt there was any real intereference. Film is protected, but you know what? There is an age requirement for adult material. I don't see the difference. I can't say I support this. It's in the gaming industries best interest if they can sell violent games to kids under 18. Sure, but it only goes as far as sale. You have to be 18 to buy it, but not to play.Point of fact you there is no LAW that prevents an underage person from entering a rated R movie, it is the INDUSTERY that keeps the kids out of the movies. Guess what the GAME Industry is also doing the EXACT SAME THING already with thier ratings system, you can not get a rated M game from any game store if you are under 18. I have also seen many game store people warn off parents attempting to buy M rated games for younger kids. Now I don't know about other retailers, but most treat M rated games just like R rated movies and keep the kids from buying it for themselfs. What this does is tell store owners that what they can or can't do with-in thier own store, while at the same time it is a foothold into true cencorship.On top of that the VERY LARGE M on the FRONT of every game is far larger and more discriptive then the R rating on any movie, as it is on the back and as small as they can get it.I feel it is just the video game makers financial interest and posing it as a first amendment issue to support their pocket books. If a site like "The Gamer Petition" doesn't even show what the law is and the issues with it, as well as seemingly tied to the EMA which interest is revenue for game companies. It just doesn't interest me. I doubt many that followed the link actually read the law in question.Also the whole "RESONABLE PERSON" clause is a HUGE red flag as well, because who is a resonable person? Jack Tomson, who thinks all video games are evil or people who I don't know have accually PLAYED THE GAME first. Sence this is a nanny law, I am going with the "reasonable" person being Jack Tomson. Really the only issue I have with it is the bill was introduced implying games have a connection to violence in real life.08-1448 SCHWARZENEGGER V. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTSASSOCIATIONDECISION BELOW: 556 F.3d 950CERT. GRANTED 4/26/2010QUESTION PRESENTED:California Civil Code sections 1746-1746.5 prohibit the sale of violent video games tominors under 18 where a reasonable person would find that the violent content appealsto a deviant or morbid interest of minors, is patently offensive to prevailing communitystandards as to what is suitable for minors, and causes the game as a whole to lackserious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. The respondent industrygroups challenged this prohibition on its face as violating the Free Speech Clause of theFirst Amendment. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's judgmentpermanently enjoining enforcement of the prohibition. The questions presented are: 1.Does the First Amendment bar a state from restricting the sale of violent video gamesto minors? 2. If the First Amendment applies to violent video games that are sold tominors, and the standard of review is strict scrutiny, under Turner BroadcastingSystem, Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 666 (1994), is the state required to demonstratea direct causal link between violent video games and physical and psychological harmto minors before the state can prohibit the sale of the games to minors?LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-16620<pre>CALIFORNIA CODESCIVIL CODESECTION 1746-1746.51746. For purposes of this title, the following definitions shallapply: (a) "Minor" means any natural person who is under 18 years of age. (b) "Person" means any natural person, partnership, firm,association, corporation, limited liability company, or other legalentity. (c) "Video game" means any electronic amusement device thatutilizes a computer, microprocessor, or similar electronic circuitryand its own monitor, or is designed to be used with a television setor a computer monitor, that interacts with the user of the device. (d) (1) "Violent video game" means a video game in which the rangeof options available to a player includes killing, maiming,dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, ifthose acts are depicted in the game in a manner that does either ofthe following: (A) Comes within all of the following descriptions: (i) A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, wouldfind appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors. (ii) It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in thecommunity as to what is suitable for minors. (iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary,artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. (B) Enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury uponimages of human beings or characters with substantially humancharacteristics in a manner which is especially heinous, cruel, ordepraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to thevictim. (2) For purposes of this subdivision, the following definitionsapply: (A) "Cruel" means that the player intends to virtually inflict ahigh degree of pain by torture or serious physical abuse of thevictim in addition to killing the victim. (B) "Depraved" means that the player relishes the virtual killingor shows indifference to the suffering of the victim, as evidenced bytorture or serious physical abuse of the victim. (C) "Heinous" means shockingly atrocious. For the killing depictedin a video game to be heinous, it must involve additional acts oftorture or serious physical abuse of the victim as set apart fromother killings. (D) "Serious physical abuse" means a significant or considerableamount of injury or damage to the victim's body which involves asubstantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain,substantial disfigurement, or substantial impairment of the functionof a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. Serious physical abuse,unlike torture, does not require that the victim be conscious of theabuse at the time it is inflicted. However, the player mustspecifically intend the abuse apart from the killing. (E) "Torture" includes mental as well as physical abuse of thevictim. In either case, the virtual victim must be conscious of theabuse at the time it is inflicted; and the player must specificallyintend to virtually inflict severe mental or physical pain orsuffering upon the victim, apart from killing the victim. (3) Pertinent factors in determining whether a killing depicted ina video game is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved includeinfliction of gratuitous violence upon the victim beyond thatnecessary to commit the killing, needless mutilation of the victim'sbody, and helplessness of the victim.1746.1. (a) A person may not sell or rent a video game that hasbeen labeled as a violent video game to a minor. (b) Proof that a defendant, or his or her employee or agent,demanded, was shown, and reasonably relied upon evidence that apurchaser or renter of a violent video game was not a minor or thatthe manufacturer failed to label a violent video game as requiredpursuant to Section 1746.2 shall be an affirmative defense to anyaction brought pursuant to this title. That evidence may include, butis not limited to, a driver's license or an identification cardissued to the purchaser or renter by a state or by the Armed Forcesof the United States. (c) This section shall not apply if the violent video game is soldor rented to a minor by the minor's parent, grandparent, aunt,uncle, or legal guardian.1746.2. Each violent video game that is imported into ordistributed in California for retail sale shall be labeled with asolid white "18" outlined in black. The "18" shall have dimensions ofno less than 2 inches by 2 inches. The "18" shall be displayed onthe front face of the video game package.1746.3. Any person who violates any provision of this title shallbe liable in an amount of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or alesser amount as determined by the court. However, this liabilityshall not apply to any person who violates those provisions if he orshe is employed solely in the capacity of a salesclerk or other,similar position and he or she does not have an ownership interest inthe business in which the violation occurred and is not employed asa manager in that business.1746.4. A suspected violation of this title may be reported to acity attorney, county counsel, or district attorney by a parent,legal guardian, or other adult acting on behalf of a minor to whom aviolent video game has been sold or rented. A violation of this titlemay be prosecuted by any city attorney, county counsel, or districtattorney.1746.5. The provisions of this title are severable. If anyprovision of this title or its application is held to be invalid,that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applicationsthat can be given effect without the invalid provision orapplication.</pre></blockquote>

Nuhus

08-16-2010, 03:38 PM

nm

Daeloq

08-16-2010, 04:24 PM

Carthr

08-29-2010, 03:04 PM

And it continues.. I loved being banned for 3 days for "continued negativity"... O M G, NOOOO NOT NEGATIVITY!! Negativity in SoE's eyes, is honesty in almost everyone elses.I will NOT support your right to spew whatever you want to onto the internet, while you censor what I say directly to you, because you find it "negative".. As a >>CONSUMER<(remember that's what we actually are), we have the right to complain if we believe the services provided aren't up to caliber we believe they should be for the amount of money and/or time invested.NO ONE, is above reproach in SoE.. The don't "address XYZ" BS in your rules is completely assnine... If you had a question for someone, would you address it to that particular person? Seems logical, to me.Another thing that made me laugh my butt off.. "Dev's are reading your posts", followed by "Our dev team can't spend time responding, because they are doing their jobs", when all that was asked was to respond simply "We hear you, we're looking into it".. So they're reading all of our posts, however don't have the 5-10 seconds(if they suck at typing), to respond with a simple line of text saying "We're looking into it"... OMG just LIE IF YOU AREN'T!! Not the first time nor the last time you are going to lie..In conclusion, your right to free speech died, when you put stipulations on mine.. You have more liberties than you have a right to possess as it is now.

Lillaanya

08-29-2010, 03:23 PM

As an American citizen I am all about the first amendment. However, as a parent, I also believe that a system needs to be in place to prevent inappropriate material from landing in th ehands of children. Putting a rating system on games and restricting their sale simply puts the decision of whether something is appropriate in the hands of the parents...where it belongs imo.

NightGod473

09-04-2010, 11:00 PM

<cite>Lillaanya wrote:</cite><blockquote>As an American citizen I am all about the first amendment. However, as a parent, I also believe that a system needs to be in place to prevent inappropriate material from landing in th ehands of children. Putting a rating system on games and restricting their sale simply puts the decision of whether something is appropriate in the hands of the parents...where it belongs imo. </blockquote>But that's not what the CA case is pushing for-they're trying to make it against the law to sell M rated games. Not requiring a rating system, but actually making it illegal. There's a huge difference between "our store won't sell you this game if you're under 18" and "our store will get fined $1000 if we sell you this game". This is basically saying M rated games are as harmful as cigarettes.

Tigress

09-04-2010, 11:25 PM

<cite>Nuhus wrote:</cite><blockquote>Really the only issue I have with it is the bill was introduced implying games have a connection to violence in real life.<pre></pre></blockquote>they've always done that. it used to be music, then it was music vidoes and lately its been video games. the fault really lies in the parents not doing their jobs properly. if my son grows up and is violent, then i failed. (and he better not!!)i'm OK with the rating system and also OK with needing to be a certain age to buy M. i compare it to going to the movies--you cant get in R rated movie if you are under 17, without parental consent by being present; however, i do have some concern about a slipperly slope. i thought the super long user agreements covered this, but i guess i was wrong.if california wanted to make all video games PG or G-rated ONLY, i'd hate that. (while it seems to only affect CA right now, other states would follow, i bet.)p.s. thanks for this link : <a rel="nofollow" href="http://gamepolitics.com/2010/07/14/more-california%E2%80%99s-scotus-brief" target="_blank">http://gamepolitics.com/2010/07/14/...9s-scotus-brief</a>

Tigress

09-04-2010, 11:28 PM

<cite>NightGod473 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lillaanya wrote:</cite><blockquote>As an American citizen I am all about the first amendment. However, as a parent, I also believe that a system needs to be in place to prevent inappropriate material from landing in th ehands of children. Putting a rating system on games and restricting their sale simply puts the decision of whether something is appropriate in the hands of the parents...where it belongs imo. </blockquote>But that's not what the CA case is pushing for-they're trying to make it against the law to sell M rated games. Not requiring a rating system, but actually making it illegal. There's a huge difference between "our store won't sell you this game if you're under 18" and "our store will get fined $1000 if we sell you this game". This is basically saying M rated games are as harmful as cigarettes.</blockquote>i didn't get that from what i read:<a rel="nofollow" href="http://kotaku.com/5586193/this-is-californias-supreme-court-argument-against-violent-video-games" target="_blank">http://kotaku.com/5586193/this-is-c...ent-video-games</a><h2>Why Violent Games Should Be Treated Like [Removed for Content]</h2> California states that lower courts have blocked this law by saying it violates a "strict scrutiny" standard that allows few exceptions for the Freedom of Speech. But, California argues, the standard with which violent games should instead be held is similar to that used to decide the 1968 case Ginsberg v. New York which deemed that there was a form of speech (legal, non-obscene pornographic magazines, in that case), which it was legal to bar from minors. Violence should get that treatment too, California argues:--------------------------------IDK, i'm conflicted. restricting the sale of M rated vidoe games from minors is OK but that's as far as i'd want it to go. (we dont sell minors [Removed for Content], Alcohol or Tobacco...)

Bosconi

09-04-2010, 11:59 PM

This thread is practically a joke.The amount of harassment I receive from GMs from carrying fair and decent conversations is pretty FREAKING despicable considering this thread even exists.Though I quoted a post earlier in support of moderation, IMO, moderation is less totalitarian and suppressive on the forums than in-game.Even though I'm very well known on my server (vindictive rivals are therein more common [which equates to more petitions on minutiae that GMs act like they need to do something over]), there should be no reason that my account receive flags from petty rules attempting to censor valid topics of discussion under the threat of banning.Namely, on terms of forum moderation, what I've been at great odds with was the whole deal with excessive locking of mainstream threads on level locking or fame returning to fame loss on death with a removal of fame decay.Level locking is now back, and with so many multi-page threads getting locked on fame loss on death, many posters who were active die off.Oppressive rule will often result in avoidance, indifference, and apathy, and these are unnatural to experience over causes that are meaningful to consumers.For lengthy, active threads, I DEFINITELY believe it is very wrong to lock the thread when such a topic is OBVIOUSLY very heated and significant.In such cases, the harassing and abusive posters should be warned in PMs, with the appropriate portions edited out.The idea that specific topics such as religion, or rallying others to submit feedback for enforcing equality in SOE's hypocritical and lackadaisical recognition of their own EULA/UAASL, these are fair topics that are COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE to try and control under the threat of excommunication.

Arek

09-05-2010, 09:31 AM

I certainly can't get behind this. I'm sick and tired of people thinking everythnig they do should be protected by the 1st amendment. The idea that this will cost tax dollars is insane at best when there are so many other more important things going on in the country/world.