Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Quote (sweetdude)

Freedom of speech usually means freedom of speech over here. Watching porn in which women are brutally beaten and raped has nothing to do with it. Under freedom of expression in the Human Rights Act, maybe, but as far as I know the law hasn't been challenged on those grounds, and even if it was, the HRA requires the court to take public interest into consideration when deciding on artistic expression.

Staged events probably 'should be' protected by the HRA. The first thing we have to define is what is or isn't in the public's interest. The prevention of all crimes is in the public interest, otherwise they'd not be considered crimes. It is for this reason that I see no reason to distinguish between one or another. It also needs to considered whether or not the moratoriums actually serve the purpose, otherwise you're infringing upon people's human rights for no good reason.

Is there even any evidence that this material contributes to the number of rape incidents or is it just just speculative conjecture? If there is, how substantial is this evidence?

Quote (sweetdude)

No, the perceived problem is not about sowing the seed of corruption in rational people, it's about pushing irrational and twisted people over the edge.

I don't see how this serves the public interest of crime prevention, unless there is a corrupting influence. Twisted and irrational people will do twisted and irrational things with or without the aid of external influence. This can be assumed because the crimes had to originate from somewhere, otherwise people wouldn't be able to depict them. We also have to consider who's twisted and irrational to begin with. The law assumes nobody is until they're proven as such, which is the concept behind fair trial.

Quote (sweetdude)

It doesn't open any doors to monitoring what people say in public. I'm sorry but I don't see any connexion between stopping people watching rape porn and living in a police state. To me that sounds like the unreasonableness that precedes the 'slippery slope' of political discussion.

The slippery slope fallacy is what this law has its basis in. It's saying that if people watches the fictionalized depiction of crime which can be a completely harmless act in and of itself, that they'll spiral down into the act of actually doing it. One action doesn't necessitate the other and they're linked by a tangent at best, no less than by my presumptions. If this logic can be applied to people, it can surely be applied to any government run by people. If it can't, then this law serves no purpose to the public.

As I said earlier, if we involve real a true criminal act everything is different. You have to commit the crime in order to record it in such cases, which intrinsically entwines the acts. Motivations are strengthened, people are victimized, the material shouldn't exist to begin with so on and so forth.

Rather than reinventing the wheel though, I should probably just reference Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition, which goes into many more details than I ever could. Whether or not it'd be considered a valid argument in Britain I cannot say. However it does mull over the points that Britain allegedly hasn't yet considered and this topic is about the United States anyway, so perhaps we shouldn't be trying to equate the two?

While reading, keep in mind that a principal American ideal is "He who would trade liberty for safety deserves both and will have neither." Sometimes this can be a little too anarchistic of a concept but I think it certainly applies in our scenario, as certainly nobody is being directly harmed by staged events. At least not forcibly anyway, which is the part that makes it wrong to begin with.

Quote

I don't think prohibiting material from kids or adults results in a loss of any kind, other than perhaps some ideological pride. People have said many times already, if kids really want to play the games they will find a way anyway, so no harm done. It's just better public policy to be tougher on the sales of these games in order to discourage it.

I think it's a loss either way. However I've already mentioned that children and adults are legally dimorphic entities with separate sets of rights and protections. By default, Adults are considered legally capable of rationalization and responsibility where as children are considered malleable incompetents. Every statutory law based upon age reflects upon this concept. This means if society deems that there's a right that may prove harmful to a child, that their loss doesn't outweigh the need for their protection because unlike an adult, they cannot protect themselves from their poor rationale.

On this note, I'd also like to state that the commonly stated way for children to find another way, was through bipartisan adult approval. If nobody who doesn't directly benefit from selling the child a game can act as a medium for the child, they cannot legally possess it.

Quote (MetroidMorphball)

That's not a law you cited to, it's a self enforced set of principles adopted by the film industry, as was the MPAA rating standard that subsequently replaced it, as is the ESRB. The exclusive purpose of these ratings systems is to AVOID having something passed by the legislature, because these industries would rather be self-regulating than deal with the hassle of government regulation, as you can see from the current case.

This is very relevant information actually and it sways my opinion a bit. I was not aware that the rating systems were optional, as they seem quite too far universally enforced. You'd think somebody would falter.

Quote ("MetroidMorphball)

I don't think that there is a comparable state legislation with respect to movies, at least not here in California

There are age based restrictions upon the kinds of media children may acquire. Even if there are none pertaining to violence, there are usually some pertaining to pornography. I'm assuming this is even true in California, no?

This post has been edited by Tonepoet on 13th May 2010 18:23

--------------------

Role reversal at its finest.

Quote (BlitzSage)

You are right, this has hurt the quality of video games and will continue to.

I'm unsure about this but probably more inclined to agree with you here. One factor to take into account might be that over 17 or 18s make up a majority of the market and therefore games would be geared towards that class, which I think they're supposed to be. I would speculate that designers are intending to make games like GTA for mature audiences rather than kids, for example the humour is usually more adult and would be right over the heads of a lot of teenagers, so it probably wouldn't effect their creativity too much. But of course I don't know for sure, so for all I know you're completely right.

Quote (BlitzSage)

Perhaps, but who decides what material should be blocked? Could it perhaps be a better responsibility to give to parents? I watched dirty films, and as you said, children will find a way.

Yeah that's a challenge. I usually trust parliaments or courts to seek adequate consultation on these matters, so, in short, experts should decide. But that's just my elitist POV, which a lot of people don't agree with, and we all know that lawmakers can act irrationally or without proper guidance, like certain recent wars or anti-filesharing legislation. In this case I'd agree with R51 in that when parents are not fulfilling their duties and there is an issue to address, someone else with authority has to act.

Quote (Tonepoet)

Rather than reinventing the wheel though, I should probably just reference Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition, which goes into many more details than I ever could. Whether or not it'd be considered a valid argument in Britain I cannot say. However it does mull over the points that Britain allegedly hasn't yet considered and this topic is about the United States anyway, so perhaps we shouldn't be trying to equate the two?

Hah! You're right I only brought it up in passing in the first place because I thought it might have some common logic regarding what effects some material can have on people. If you want to know, a principle reason, but not the only reason, for the act was that there was a horrible case brought forward in England involving a man who was obsessed with what they call 'extreme' pornography, and the woman's mother put out a campaign to have it banned to potentially stop the same thing happening again. Very reactionary, but like I say there were others reasons also. Anyway the point is that I think it's fair to say that some content can have a dangerous effect on some people. Not a widespread pandemic, as it were, but still it only takes one.

Quote (Tonepoet)

While reading, keep in mind that a principal American ideal is "He who would trade liberty for safety deserves both and will have neither." Sometimes this can be a little too anarchistic of a concept but I think it certainly applies in our scenario

I think I understand your views, and I agree with them to an extent, but I'm much more inclined to fall into the 'safety' camp because in my opinion saving one victim of a brutal crime is better than saving a tiny portion of everyone else's liberty, crucially, within reason. I'm guessing the quote implies that 'he who would trade liberty for safety [most of the time]... will have neither.' Unless you're actually quoting an anarchist rather than a liberal. But overall I see your point. My answer would be 'when riding the stallion of liberty don't forget the bridle and whip.'

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote

but i can say as absolute fact that the westborough presbeterian religion is not good.

that's the point, it's not the game or the movie or wathever that makes people do stupid things, because, according to my friend here, i would be the most evil person in the world. The problem is how the audience aprehends the content they are watching or playing, and that's why parents are so important, while the government should be in second plan.

If you are a good parent, you will know if your child is able to play violent games and let that violence there, because you raised that child, gave them values and moral. law trying to choose what is better is not right.

--------------------

Live Long and Prosper!

If violence and other adult-oriented content in video games are such imperative concerns to these doleful numbskulls, then how come the Bible isn't rated R? After all, such filthy literature like the Bible contains depressing war stories, abuse, adult sex content, and an overwhelming fear of "burning in the lake of fire" over some angry monster. I see more positives in the video games that get panned than an evil book.

I dislike Christianity. I do not support fascists.

This post has been edited by Allen Hunter on 13th May 2010 21:55

Separation of church and state, idiot.

Moderator Edit

No call for this, none at all. -R51

This post has been edited by Rangers51 on 13th May 2010 21:58

--------------------

And have you found your joy, in this near dead world of ours?

Quote (Gabe @ 13th May 2010 21:54)

Separation of church and state, idiot.

Why the need for name-calling? It is so juvenile.

Quote (BlitzSage @ 13th May 2010 01:42)

Quote (Malevolence @ 12th May 2010 18:52)

i dont know. why did Congress hold hearings about steroid use in baseball?

Umm, because steroids are dangerous substance that has been prevalent, not just in professional sports, but in lower levels? Including students that can do major harm to themselves? Also, that is Congress. You can expect stuff like that from them. The Supreme Court can choose which cases to hear. They could have sided with the lower court's decision and let it be, and they do not have to go through elections.

Most drugs are prohibited because they cannot be controlled.

I agree with banning some drugs like:

Cocain,heroin,speed,crystal meth and any other non natural drug that will kill you.

The natural drugs are most not as bad because they need to be processed to make drugs potent enough that it poses health problems.

Crystal meth i heard is completely synthetic.

I don't really think smoking marijuana once in a while is such a bad thing.

Abusing it like anything is bad,but not if its once in a while and not always.

If you prohibit something,chances are that the people will more likely want to get it.

I dislike Christianity. I do not support fascists. allen hunter

I agree,i am anti religion myself.

I actually had a fight with a muslim because he was trying to convince me that the muslims were on the land before jews.

And jews have been around way before muslims and christians.

In fact both have stuff that came from judaism.


This post has been edited by Magitek_slayer on 14th May 2010 17:50

--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

I just heard that the date for the supreme court case was set for November 2. Schwarzenegger vs EMA.

It's interesting, for all the video game related lawsuits and such of the past decade, this one seems to be under the most public scrutiny (at least that I can remember).

This post has been edited by FallingHeart on 25th August 2010 22:46

--------------------

"We're not tools of the government or anyone else. Fighting... fighting was the only thing I was ever good at, but at least I always fought for what I believed in." - Frank Yeager (a.k.a. Grey Fox)

Quote (FallingHeart @ 25th August 2010 18:46)

I just heard that the date for the supreme court case was set for November 2. Schwarzenegger vs EMA.

It's interesting, for all the video game related lawsuits and such of the past decade, this one seems to be under the most public scrutiny (at least that I can remember).

Thanks for the date. Oh, and that is because this is one of the most important, because it will decide if video games are protected under the First Amendment.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!