Even with her AmendmenttollwutigMarch 20 2006, 19:22:41 UTC
it's doomed:
"Keeley has a proposed amendment, not yet available for public scrutiny, that cites the Columbine massacre, the brain-scan studies and other factors as "overwhelming evidence ... that there is a direct causal link between minors' consumption of violent video games and increased levels of aggression and violence by minors."
She obviously hasn't looked into the court rulings, maybe someone should link her to them. "overwhelming evidence" is very hard to acheive in court and so far every court has ruled that no has shown a casual link.. and they had more evidence than she is citing.
I sure hope Delaware is Thompson's "First Amendment Proof Bill" because as worded, and the evidence they have is just the same as Michigan.
Not to mention they aren't looking at all the studies, if they'd look at mine they would see a counter tho the one's Thompson always quotes. http://tollwutig.livejournal.com/2265.html
kudos to DonaldsonjabrwockMarch 20 2006, 19:42:33 UTC
I'm glad they printed your comment about Thompson's claim that games aren't speech. It's obvious that JT has about as much of a clue as what speech is and isn't as Roger Ebert does.
Re: kudos to DonaldsonjabrwockMarch 20 2006, 20:26:34 UTC
Roger Ebert has a better clue....
True, but his reasoning is still inherently flawed. Just because you decide the outcome, doesn't mean the author has lost control of the narrative. Otherwise movies with alternate endings wouldn't be considered "art".
Where to draw the line?beacon80March 20 2006, 20:00:58 UTC
Okay, so a video game isn't speech, but, say, a DVD movie is, right? So how about when a video game reaches a cut scene? It's not letting you play a game at the moment. Would it help if the video game in question was pre-rendered? How about in an RPG, where there's dialogue printed on the screen. That's speech, right? Or do words need to be on paper to count? On that note, if a game isn't speech, then does it matter at all? If it's not speech, could it possibly effect people the way Thompson claims it can? Isn't it the very ability to convey ideas and thoughts, Thompson's very targets, that separate speech from noise?
Sure, I can draw the line even if you cannot...satansayshooahMarch 21 2006, 01:22:39 UTC
and the court in Alabama agreed with me: Adult games marketed to kids are not protected by the First Amendment. You don't passively watch a game, you play it. It is a device. Duh. Jack Thompson
Re: Sure, I can draw the line even if you cannot...beacon80March 21 2006, 02:02:31 UTC
First of all, Jack, why are you even here? You'd think a lawyer would understand the basic Terms of Service agreement LiveJournal has. And you didn't answer any of my questions. What about cut-scenes, i.e. scenes where the player stops controlling the characters and they act out scripted scenes to tell part of the story? You watch those, not play them, so would the First Amendment apply to those sections? You don't watch music, but that's protected. You don't watch a book, either. Why is it that the fact something is played, as opposed to watched, read, listened to, or looked at, prohibits it from being speech? Finally, the most important thing I brought up, you, of course, ignore completely: If games aren't speech, how could they have the effect you attribute to them. If they're capable of passing ideas and thoughts, doesn't that make them speech?
Re: Sure, I can draw the line even if you cannot...warpstarmstr122March 21 2006, 03:07:09 UTC
Why shouldn't the games be protected? We're all in agreement that adult games should never be sold to minors. Parents should be responsible for knowing what their child is playing and for helping draw the line between fantasy and reality. Parents should be responsible for knowing how the ESRB operates and keep adult games out of their child's hands, just as they know how the ratings of the MPAA work and keep R rated movies out of their hands.
You don't passively watch a game, you play it. On the contrary, I watch my brother play games all the time while I wait my turn to use the Gamecube. Also, there are certain things in games called cut-scenes. They are special (usually based on a plot event) cinematics when you watch a scene unfold, just like in a movie. You cannot control your character/party during these cutscenes.
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.
No shit! They're not supposed to! They're adult entertainment! They're not supposed to educate children, they're supposed to entertain adults! Why is that so hard for these people to comprehend?
Re: wow.........panicbutton42March 20 2006, 20:43:14 UTC
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."
maybe I should be the crap out of you for being so damned ignorant.
C'mon, was that last comment necessary? I imagine it was said with a heavy dose of sarcasm, but there are those who would take that at face value. Its comments like those, taken at face value that hurt gamer credibility.
Re: wow.........jabrwockMarch 20 2006, 20:56:00 UTC
I got the joke, but it still wasn't really that funny. There's an art to sarcasm, and that one doesn't even get an "E" for effort... :P
Maybe something along the lines of So it's ok to beat the crap out of a women if a politician says so? I guess reruns of old sitcoms get Rep. Keeley's stamp of approval.
Comments 417
"Keeley has a proposed amendment, not yet available for public scrutiny, that cites the Columbine massacre, the brain-scan studies and other factors as "overwhelming evidence ... that there is a direct causal link between minors' consumption of violent video games and increased levels of aggression and violence by minors."
She obviously hasn't looked into the court rulings, maybe someone should link her to them. "overwhelming evidence" is very hard to acheive in court and so far every court has ruled that no has shown a casual link.. and they had more evidence than she is citing.
I sure hope Delaware is Thompson's "First Amendment Proof Bill" because as worded, and the evidence they have is just the same as Michigan.
Not to mention they aren't looking at all the studies, if they'd look at mine they would see a counter tho the one's Thompson always quotes. http://tollwutig.livejournal.com/2265.html
Reply
Reply
Reply
True, but his reasoning is still inherently flawed. Just because you decide the outcome, doesn't mean the author has lost control of the narrative. Otherwise movies with alternate endings wouldn't be considered "art".
Reply
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19800716/REVIEWS/7160301/1023
Andrew Eisen
Reply
So how about when a video game reaches a cut scene? It's not letting you play a game at the moment. Would it help if the video game in question was pre-rendered?
How about in an RPG, where there's dialogue printed on the screen. That's speech, right? Or do words need to be on paper to count?
On that note, if a game isn't speech, then does it matter at all? If it's not speech, could it possibly effect people the way Thompson claims it can? Isn't it the very ability to convey ideas and thoughts, Thompson's very targets, that separate speech from noise?
P.S. James, you rock!
Reply
Reply
And you didn't answer any of my questions. What about cut-scenes, i.e. scenes where the player stops controlling the characters and they act out scripted scenes to tell part of the story? You watch those, not play them, so would the First Amendment apply to those sections?
You don't watch music, but that's protected. You don't watch a book, either. Why is it that the fact something is played, as opposed to watched, read, listened to, or looked at, prohibits it from being speech?
Finally, the most important thing I brought up, you, of course, ignore completely: If games aren't speech, how could they have the effect you attribute to them. If they're capable of passing ideas and thoughts, doesn't that make them speech?
Reply
We're all in agreement that adult games should never be sold to minors. Parents should be responsible for knowing what their child is playing and for helping draw the line between fantasy and reality.
Parents should be responsible for knowing how the ESRB operates and keep adult games out of their child's hands, just as they know how the ratings of the MPAA work and keep R rated movies out of their hands.
You don't passively watch a game, you play it.
On the contrary, I watch my brother play games all the time while I wait my turn to use the Gamecube. Also, there are certain things in games called cut-scenes. They are special (usually based on a plot event) cinematics when you watch a scene unfold, just like in a movie. You cannot control your character/party during these cutscenes.
Reply
No shit! They're not supposed to! They're adult entertainment! They're not supposed to educate children, they're supposed to entertain adults! Why is that so hard for these people to comprehend?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
maybe I should be the crap out of you for being so damned ignorant.
C'mon, was that last comment necessary? I imagine it was said with a heavy dose of sarcasm, but there are those who would take that at face value. Its comments like those, taken at face value that hurt gamer credibility.
Reply
but I still don't agree with the way she says her line either.
Reply
Maybe something along the lines of So it's ok to beat the crap out of a women if a politician says so? I guess reruns of old sitcoms get Rep. Keeley's stamp of approval.
Reply
Leave a comment