PDA

View Full Version : New 1st amendment fight over M-Rated Video Games



enslaved1
11-04-2010, 11:41 AM
Townhall column (http://tinyurl.com/2af2j5x)

In an odd move, Cali got something right. I absolutely support the freedom of speech, and was a burgeoning metalhead in the days of the PMRC and their congressional hearings over evil heavy metal needing to be banned, Walmart refusing to carry albums with the parental advisory sticker, so I'm well versed in fighting for the right to sell your expressions. But putting an age limit on M-rated games ain't censorship. 1. The parent can still buy the game for the kid. 2. I'll wager that there will be many download/mailorder places that will happily be able to go around the California law. 3. Censorship means that your speech is made unavailable for anyone, or at least very large chunks of the population. When Walmart was refusing to carry stickered albums, that meant the record companies were losing huge markets, and many of us who relied on Wallyworld for our tunes because there were no other options around were cut off. In the internet age, such actions mean squat. And 4. It's a state law, not set by Congress, and as noted above, doesn't in reality limit anyone's freedom of speech or expression. The games are still out there, available to the masses. Kids just have to get their parents to put the money on the counter.

What say you, folks?

Wei Wu Wei
11-04-2010, 11:43 AM
Good it pisses me off when I try playing a game online and there's a bunch of annoying children playing. These games are violent they are too young stop ruining my chill time and maybe do some homework.

NJCardFan
11-04-2010, 11:54 AM
Walmart refusing to carry albums with the parental advisory sticker

Walmart is a private company and can carry or not carry any product they wish. This isn't censorship. However, you were right about the PMRC, which was led by whom? Yep, Tipper Gore. Funny how a lot of leftist think this was a conservative/Republican initiative.

Rebel Yell
11-04-2010, 12:23 PM
Walmart is a private company and can carry or not carry any product they wish. This isn't censorship. However, you were right about the PMRC, which was led by whom? Yep, Tipper Gore. Funny how a lot of leftist think this was a conservative/Republican initiative.
From White America by Eminem....

spoken words...


America
Ha ha ha
We love you

How many people are proud to be
Citizens of this beautiful country of ours?
The stripes and the stars for the rights of men
Who have died for the protect?
The women and men who have broke their necks
For the freedom of speech
The United States Government has sworn to uphold
Or so we're told


So to the parents of America
I am the damager aimed at little Erica
To attack her character
The ring leader of the circus of worthless pawns
Sent to lead the march right up to the steps of Congress
And piss on the lawns of the White House
To burn the casket and replace it
With a parental advisory sticker
To spit liquor in the faces of this democracy of hypocrisy
Fuck you Ms Cheney
Fuck you Tipper Gore
Fuck you with the free-est of speech
This divided states of embarrassment will allow me to have
Fuck you

Ha ha ha
I'm just playin' America, you know I love you

enslaved1
11-04-2010, 12:35 PM
Walmart is a private company and can carry or not carry any product they wish. This isn't censorship. However, you were right about the PMRC, which was led by whom? Yep, Tipper Gore. Funny how a lot of leftist think this was a conservative/Republican initiative.

That was a big part of the argument at the time. Yes, they are a private company, but Walmart had an unfair market share in many parts of the country (including mine). If they said they would not carry an album, it was a serious shot in the sales report, which could have (did? not sure offhand anymore) lead to record labels not signing bands or releasing albums that Wallyworld wouldn't carry. In the climate of the time, Walmart had the power of censorship. Now of course, that climate has shifted significantly, and nobody gives a rat's rear end if Walmart will stock your CD or not. Imagine though, if iTunes set down such rules? Granted, it wouldn't be as significant, because there are many other online options, but would record labels adjust their output to make sure their product was in the biggest music marketplace? The Walmart situation was a perfect storm of market share and corporate influence, one that we see rising again in things like the need for net neutrality, not letting ISP's offer preferential treatment to content.

And yes it was Tipper Gore, and her good friend Hillary Clinton behind the PMRC, who pulled up Dee Snider in front of Congress, but we right wingers are the evil thought police. :rolleyes:

noonwitch
11-04-2010, 03:03 PM
Walmart is a private company and can carry or not carry any product they wish. This isn't censorship. However, you were right about the PMRC, which was led by whom? Yep, Tipper Gore. Funny how a lot of leftist think this was a conservative/Republican initiative.


Tipper always said she wanted parents to be aware of what their kids were listening to, and that she left the PMRC when they started advocating for actual censorship. I don't know or care how much truth is in that statement, except to say that parents should have been paying attention regardless of whether some Senators' wives tell them to or not. Mine never did, but I wasn't a headbanger in high school, nor did I listen to anything really objectionable. My mom complained about my brother's Foghat records being too loud and "not very melodic", and my dad loathed Van Halen.


My mom did the worst thing about most of our music-she liked it.

NJCardFan
11-05-2010, 12:09 AM
That was a big part of the argument at the time. Yes, they are a private company, but Walmart had an unfair market share in many parts of the country (including mine). If they said they would not carry an album, it was a serious shot in the sales report, which could have (did? not sure offhand anymore) lead to record labels not signing bands or releasing albums that Wallyworld wouldn't carry. In the climate of the time, Walmart had the power of censorship. Now of course, that climate has shifted significantly, and nobody gives a rat's rear end if Walmart will stock your CD or not. Imagine though, if iTunes set down such rules? Granted, it wouldn't be as significant, because there are many other online options, but would record labels adjust their output to make sure their product was in the biggest music marketplace? The Walmart situation was a perfect storm of market share and corporate influence, one that we see rising again in things like the need for net neutrality, not letting ISP's offer preferential treatment to content.

And yes it was Tipper Gore, and her good friend Hillary Clinton behind the PMRC, who pulled up Dee Snider in front of Congress, but we right wingers are the evil thought police. :rolleyes:

Again, they're a private company who has the right to carry or not carry any item they choose. That's like complaining that they did't carry the brand of lawn mower you liked. Also, when these types of decisions were being made, the computer age was already upon us. Ordering online is always an option.

KhrushchevsShoe
11-05-2010, 08:38 AM
I was actually semi-pro in Starcraft Brood War in college and there were occasionally like 12 year old kids showing up to tournaments. That's terrible parenting right.

enslaved1
11-05-2010, 01:29 PM
Again, they're a private company who has the right to carry or not carry any item they choose. That's like complaining that they did't carry the brand of lawn mower you liked. Also, when these types of decisions were being made, the computer age was already upon us. Ordering online is always an option.

They are a private company, and have the right to carry what they want. And when they are the only game in town, the people have the right to pitch a fit about what they are not carrying (or better yet start their own record store). What it came down to at the time though, was that record labels were making decisions about lyrics, album covers, ect, based on what Walmart would accept, giving them, Walmart, an overreaching power over what was being said. Obviously, that power is long gone now. I don't think the lawn mower comparison is accurate, because at least in my experience, the Walmarts haven't quite been able to push the ACE Hardware stores out, even in the small towns, which leaves room for competition and someone else carrying that other brand. I have lived in and been through towns where there are no other music stores in town besides Wallyworld, because they weren't able to keep afloat.

And at the time, some of you advanced folks might have had a 300baud modem to put your phone receiver on and get on the college BBS's, but us poor midwestern hicks were still in awe of the rows of Apple IIc's the school just bought. ;)

m00
11-06-2010, 12:11 AM
]Again, they're a private company who has the right to carry or not carry any item they choose.[/B] That's like complaining that they did't carry the brand of lawn mower you liked. Also, when these types of decisions were being made, the computer age was already upon us. Ordering online is always an option.

Well, I agree with you unless they were using their monopoly to create other monopolies (if Walmart had a monopoly on retail stores, and they only sold video games they published to create a video game monopoly). But until that happens you are absolutely correct.

fettpett
11-06-2010, 10:04 AM
this is the same vein and should be treated the same as Movies. the Video game industry policies it's self with it's rating system that is far more transparent and consistent than the Movie industry. Games with an M rating shouldn't be sold to children under 17, but if a parent is fucking stupid enough to buy it for them it's that parent who's responsible. If a Company doesn't want to carry T-M rated games/music/movies, it's their prerogative.

The difference? the Video Game industry is younger and much less influential than the Movie Industry and lacks the backing and political backing.

NJCardFan
11-06-2010, 10:11 AM
this is the same vein and should be treated the same as Movies. the Video game industry policies it's self with it's rating system that is far more transparent and consistent than the Movie industry. Games with an M rating shouldn't be sold to children under 17, but if a parent is fucking stupid enough to buy it for them it's that parent who's responsible. If a Company doesn't want to carry T-M rated games/music/movies, it's their prerogative.

The difference? the Video Game industry is younger and much less influential than the Movie Industry and lacks the backing and political backing.

O'Reilly mentioned this last night and the 2 ladies who do the Is it Legal segment, both agreed that the California law is too vague and it will be sent back for clarification. He also said that there are shootings and killing on TV all the time and television isn't as regulated as movies and video games.

fettpett
11-06-2010, 10:25 AM
O'Reilly mentioned this last night and the 2 ladies who do the Is it Legal segment, both agreed that the California law is too vague and it will be sent back for clarification. He also said that there are shootings and killing on TV all the time and television isn't as regulated as movies and video games.

exactly, If any industry needs to be regulated more it's the Movie industry, a wildly inconsistent Rating system that movies like Team America have to do extreme things in order to get the R rating they wanted. At lest with the Video Game industry we know who the raters are and they are consistent, All Grand Theft Auto games have gotten M ratings along with other gory/violent Games. Hell back in the day Leisure Suit Larry had a built in Rating system (you had to have a word from the game guide to get in and unlock the different layers of nudity