Jack Thompson, who was supported by both Clinton and Liebermen before he went off the deep end, did indeed say the only solution to the video game question was to ban all of them.

Merriam-Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

I think banning video games would fall under the "severe ... social regimentation" part of that definition. So while they aren't covering 100% of fascist views, they are attempt to take a step that is a part of fascism.

crap, double post.

anyway. ban-happy retards? Facism?

it's all about the words used neko. I don't belong to a party, but that doesn't mean that you can show alittle more respect to people.

or maybe you actually can't... hmmm

Democrat hate?

I'm sorry that they pretty much fall inline against videogames, because that is the subject.

You will notice I did not stray outside of the subject of videogames.

Hey, guess what.

Anyone who has or plans on voting democrat, this is YOUR fault.

Guess who the major proponents of banning video games are? Democrats. Senators Hillary Clinton and Joseph Lieberman are the most well-known amongst the horde of left-wing videogame hating ban-happy retards.

They've been leading a campaign against videogames since the early 90s, alongside their campaign against music.

They wish to employ fascism so that videogames aren't just "regulated", but in many instances outright banned and unable to be distributed in the US.

But is this exclusive to Democrats? Of course not. However, it is far more prevalent, as they attempt to become the party of "moral values" (I laugh at that).

In summation. Don't vote democrat.

Please don't vote republican, either.

Do not vote down party lines. Weigh and decide each issue and each candidate, and decide what YOU think is best for you. Because if you decide wrong, soon THEY will be deciding what is best for you.

This has been a public service announcement from Nekofrog. You may return to your regularly scheduled GAF.

Finally, someone has some common sense. Good job maydan.

The video game industry needs more people like maydan. Not because we need support for laws like this, but because we need people we common sense. Kids (as in KIDS) shouldn't be playing games where you take the "persona of a serial killer or gangster or whatever." After four months of research on whether video games effect kids, I have found that video games DO in fact effect at least some kids to become violent or awaken violence already present and act on it. The function in video games that causes children to become violent is desensitization as modeled by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, an expert on the psychology of killing. The 4 main methods of desensitization are brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and role modeling . YET, children do NOT become violent strictly due to video games. Many other factors play into violent youth. And when I say many, I mean MANY. Such as: Past experience, home life, depression, anger, resentment, acceptance, abuse in the home, money issues, insecurity, phobias, and anxieties, just to name a few.

But we can't turn a blind eye to either direction. We can't say "Oh it's ok for kids to interact with serial killers and witness brutal killings in video games" (Which, by the way, children 8 years and younger cannot distinguish reality from fantasy). Then again, we can't say "Kids cannot buy, be around, or play violent video games ever because they will all turn into mass murderers."

We, as the video game industry, must find a way to balance. Strict laws show no signs of balance. Free reign shows no signs of balance. The ESRB is our chance to keep that balance, but they do a s***ty job, in my and every crazy polititian's opinion.

It is ultimately the parents responsibility, but alot of the time, they don't know ANYTHING, regardless of being told, shown, and damn near yelled at by the ESRB and GameStop employees. So they really can't be blamed. They are sucked in by nagging and wanting to please their children. Parents are victims too (read "Born to Buy").

So... Who's to blame? Who can we point the finger at? Because thats exactly what we all want. We all want to find the "villian." So who is the villian? Personally, I think it's me. And you. And all of us, from Jack Thompson to Leeroy Jenkins.

So... now what? What do we do?

We must have some kind of enforcement so all of our children don't get sucked into buying the most extreme M rated games just so that some game company can grease its palms. But also we must have the freedom to choose, explore, excite, shock, push boundaries, and to generally have fun. We, as a community, must find that balance before some ignorant polititian nails it down one way or the other.

Actually, I'm pretty sure alcohol sales to minors is prohibited by law, not the alcohol industry.

Didn't read what the law actually does but I personally think it's a good idea to keep minors from purchasing violent games where you can assume the persona of a serial killer or gangster or whatever. I honestly don't think kids should play those kinds of games especially with graphics getting better and more realistic.

Oklahoma is kinda weird. Politically, people are split 50/50 red and blue on matters where the government should be involved, but almost everyone is extremely socially conservative.

Within the bible belt, Oklahoma is the bible buckle.

If put to an Athenean democracy vote, it would probably still have passed.

We couldn't even get tattoos until about 3 weeks ago, and it is illegal to sell any non-softcore porn as well. That should give you a pretty good idea of how people feel in Oklahoma.

j.esco, if what you say is true(which I've no reason to believe it isn't), then the ESA will likely win the lawsuit, this will get struck down as violated the 1st Amendment, and in the long run little harm will be done. Your friend, and others, may still be out of a job during this time though.

lacks serious literary, *scientific*, medical, artistic, or political value

so i guess there will be no scientology game. =)

I dont understand why the game industry isnt treated like the film industry and self regulated. Every up and coming polotician seems to need a couse to fight against and games must be an easy target. Although there will always be people against games i think (at least i hope) this silly cencership of games will fade as our generation comes into high positions in the legal system.

What can I say. This bill is stupid though their intentions are just, they clearly don't understand that in order to do this to games effectively, you'd have to place the same kind of crap on all other creative media.

Let me give you an example of confusion that may come. Say there's a new game based on the upcoming TMNT CG flick, just how do you sell the game next to the books, dvd, comics and films.

I can for once say I'm glad I live in England.

Can't these politicians stop being PARENTS and make laws that actually matter?

Ya know, the Wisconsin bill doesn't seem that bad anymore....at least that one honored the ESRB's rating system.

This bill just makes up it's own system, and they might as well just create a new state organization to mark games as acceptable, b/c the federal gov't and the ESRB sure as hell ain't gonna follow these rules.

Of the "9 points" the one I find the funniest is point 1. It looks like it's worded wrong. The game can't be "glamorized"? It mentions nothing about violence in the previous paragraph and goes straight into being "glamorized", doesn't every game try to glamorize what it's about? Doesn't a Tiger Woods game glamorize golf? Doesn't a game with Dora the Explorer in it glamorize...well...Dora the Explorer? By this logic, every video game qualifies under this, especially if they have no "artistic, scientific, or political value" (like 95% of the movies out of hollywood have any of that anyway)

btw, does it mention a penalty for breaking this law anywhere?

The problem with this is that it's objective. What exactly are "contemporary community standards?"

I have a hard time believing that non-specific bills like this one will work. As silly as it might sound, they'd need to go into explicit detail about the kind of violence being shown. Otherwise, we'll have some people saying it's offensive and others saying it's not.