"We've identified these materials as being harmful to minors. I think it can be proved it court."
That's what the sponsors of all the other failed bills said too. There is no defintive, irrefutible evidence out there that these games cause harm to kids. And if they did, why wouldn't movies, music, or TV? This bill will go down just like all the others, and this idiot will be out of office like he should be.
Go out on a relative "bang" by pushing a sensational but ultimately flawed bill. Then when your successor can't handle it, say "if I were in office it would have passed!"
I think it can be proved in court." and I know it can't
The thing that bothers me is I've got a 13-year-old granddaughter right now that can walk into a Blockbuster and pick these things up." well, because you said blockbuster I'll bite. first thing, blockbuster requires you to have their card so unless your granddaughter is a theif she won't even be able to get past the first step. Let's not forget that blockbuster has one of the best ratings for enforcing esrb ratings and not allowing kids to have mature rated games.
also: if it's possible can someone pick up the audio on the hearing, since I have to be in class when they meet.
Oh, and I feel sorry for the children if this passes, no more loony toons.
Actually, no.startropicsSeptember 20 2006, 11:48:01 UTC
His 13-year-old granddaughter cannot stroll into Blockbuster and pick up a copy of GTA:SA or something. Blockbuster doesn't let people under 18 rent that stuff.
Re: Actually, no.brainswarmSeptember 20 2006, 14:23:16 UTC
If I recall correctly, Blockbuster only allows children to rent R rated movies and M rated video games if the parent a)gives the child permission to rent on the account, and b)gives the child permission to rent mature materials without the parent's presence. So, if Hogue's granddaughter can pick up GTA at Blockbuster, it's because her parents said it's okay.
Re: Actually, no.mcfly0612September 20 2006, 15:21:20 UTC
This is true. When I was 16 I went to Blockbuster to try and rent the South Park movie. They actually called my mom to verify that I was allowed to rent it.
Re: Actually, no.finaleveSeptember 21 2006, 03:45:54 UTC
heh, funny story on that one.
A few friends and I were going to get a movie (I don't recall what...but it was something R rated...im thinking it was American History X). We caught it as a rental, and my friend (under 18) went up and tried to rent it. They asked for ID and denied since he wasnt of age. Well, that was our friend who works there, and told us to see if the movie was available to purchase, for we can do that.
It's a WTF moment right there.
im not sure how much different this would be if it were a game...but then times have changed since then.
I don't understand ithayabusa75September 20 2006, 11:49:14 UTC
Every anti-game law created comes with a sponsor who claims that his/her bill is different from all the rest. However, as far as I can tell, they all have the exact same flaws. Unconstitutionality aside, every single one flat-out airballs their attempt to define an unacceptable level of violence. "Appeals to minor's morbid interest...inconsistent with community-accepted values...use of weapons to inflict maximum damage..." I have yet to find a single quantifiable example in any of these pieces of legi-crap-tion. Is it all attributable to ignorance and personal agendas? I'm having trouble believing otherwise.
Re: I don't understand itkharne83September 20 2006, 21:41:31 UTC
I think the problem is that they want to stop violent games, but they don't want to define violence for fear that some games they disagree with might slip past the bill. The rub is that they can't stop violent games without first defining what they violence is.
They want to stop violence without actually defining it, and that can never work. If they allowed some games to slip past in favor of a more precise definition of violence, they'd probably have their bill by now.
republican aye?evirustheslayeSeptember 20 2006, 12:15:34 UTC
you know whats also harmful to children? a war agenst a country that hasn't attacked us. also national security that has more holes then...... the logic of the bill they are trying to pass
im glad to see a republican on here though, some might conclude that anti-videogame legislation is a democrat policy(most of the democrats who push for these bills are wishy washy)
Comments 52
That's what the sponsors of all the other failed bills said too. There is no defintive, irrefutible evidence out there that these games cause harm to kids. And if they did, why wouldn't movies, music, or TV? This bill will go down just like all the others, and this idiot will be out of office like he should be.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Go out on a relative "bang" by pushing a sensational but ultimately flawed bill. Then when your successor can't handle it, say "if I were in office it would have passed!"
*sigh* Yaaay politics...
Reply
and I know it can't
The thing that bothers me is I've got a 13-year-old granddaughter right now that can walk into a Blockbuster and pick these things up."
well, because you said blockbuster I'll bite. first thing, blockbuster requires you to have their card so unless your granddaughter is a theif she won't even be able to get past the first step. Let's not forget that blockbuster has one of the best ratings for enforcing esrb ratings and not allowing kids to have mature rated games.
also: if it's possible can someone pick up the audio on the hearing, since I have to be in class when they meet.
Oh, and I feel sorry for the children if this passes, no more loony toons.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
A few friends and I were going to get a movie (I don't recall what...but it was something R rated...im thinking it was American History X). We caught it as a rental, and my friend (under 18) went up and tried to rent it. They asked for ID and denied since he wasnt of age.
Well, that was our friend who works there, and told us to see if the movie was available to purchase, for we can do that.
It's a WTF moment right there.
im not sure how much different this would be if it were a game...but then times have changed since then.
Reply
Reply
They want to stop violence without actually defining it, and that can never work. If they allowed some games to slip past in favor of a more precise definition of violence, they'd probably have their bill by now.
Reply
im glad to see a republican on here though, some might conclude that anti-videogame legislation is a democrat policy(most of the democrats who push for these bills are wishy washy)
Reply
Leave a comment