"We're going to say that it's not right to beat the crap out of a woman," she said, an apparent reference to the oft-cited potential for hooker violence in the Grand Theft Auto series. "It's up to us to make that decision."
I'm sorry, but this is wrong in so many ways. First of all, It's ok to beat the crap out of a man, but not a woman? This is what 50+ years of "Equal Rights" movements gets us? Second, It's up to them? Because the citizens of America are nothing more than mindless drones now?
Also, is anyone else scared that if video games stop being considered "Speech", that eventually, it's going to snowball to the point where you can't read, watch on TV, or even hear these things over the radio, because "It's not speech, it's just ink on paper/just airwaves being transmitted to the TV/Radio"?
I agree, and think that it's pretty irrelevant to bring women's rights and/or sexism into the issue of violence in GTA in particular. The killing in that game is equal-opportunity, and Rep. Keeley's statement just seems like a sensationalist remark to stir up feminist support, or something to that extent. Not that I've come to expect logic from legislators who introduce these kinds of bills, but I find this latest tactic to be particularly annoying.
If someone made up definitive rules, that could be a fun game. Play the "fanatic" card, the "lobbyist" card, the "sensationalize" card... or the darker side, the "bribe" card, the "character assassination card....
Why do anti video game critics keep refering to games as "videos?" When they say "violent videos" or "adult videos," it not only makes me think for a second that they're talking about movies, it shows that they are so far removed from the subject of video games that they fail to even call them by the term that every one else in the country has called them for 30 years.
I think they are looking to make people perceive the games in a particular way. There already had been such a stink over "adult videos" that such a term puts a specific image in the minds of parents and "concerned" constituents. An incorrect image, but one that is used as a tactic to cut away at video games. Same goes with "violent videos". Sure, once again, it's an incorrect message, but such is life when dealing with politics.
If violent video games are being characterized as violent movies, then why no legislation to restrict movies? If violent movies are okay, and violent games are just violent movies, then aren't games off the hook? Man, these people are stupid.
Because they are just looking for an image, something to stick into people's heads. It's not a comparison, as setting a particular tone then to move forward in attacks against video games from. A platform to launch from, rather than anything to actually compare against. People have pre-defined views of "violent videos" and "adult videos", that when used in this fashion, sets a tone for the reader to work with for the rest of the discussion. It's a manipulative tactic.
Also about this quote:notasholyasthouMarch 20 2006, 19:08:48 UTC
"We work every day to try to provide a safe learning environment for our kids, and we don't believe that adult violent videos help children to prepare for their time working in school or getting along with their peers in the real world," DSEA President Barbara Grogg said.
So...uh...how about just not allowing games to be played at school? I never knew this was an issue.
I find this funnyblitzfitnessMarch 20 2006, 19:21:27 UTC
Videogames can't be protected by free speech some say? Interesting, music, art, and the written word are protected, aren't they? Videogames are a culmination of all three, aren't they?
Comments 417
I'm sorry, but this is wrong in so many ways. First of all, It's ok to beat the crap out of a man, but not a woman? This is what 50+ years of "Equal Rights" movements gets us? Second, It's up to them? Because the citizens of America are nothing more than mindless drones now?
Also, is anyone else scared that if video games stop being considered "Speech", that eventually, it's going to snowball to the point where you can't read, watch on TV, or even hear these things over the radio, because "It's not speech, it's just ink on paper/just airwaves being transmitted to the TV/Radio"?
Reply
Reply
Politics's the Gathering Anyone?
Reply
I'd play it. :)
Reply
Oh wait, Jack probably agrees with that.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
So...uh...how about just not allowing games to be played at school? I never knew this was an issue.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Leave a comment