Poll: Violent Video Games Being Banned in America

[Canadamus Prime]

Alright, this is the Escapist, as well as a gaming forum; no one is going to vote "yes".

Especially considering that the question was about America, which has this little thing called the First Amendment

Which I've noticed seems to get thrown out the window whenever it's convenient. And wheeled back in whenever some hateful fucker needs to defend him/herself.
God damn, I love America. You'll willingly consider banning violent video games, but no would would dare think of stopping some hate-filled church group (you know the one I'm talking about). ¬_¬

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Alright, this is the Escapist, as well as a gaming forum; no one is going to vote "yes".

Especially considering that the question was about America, which has this little thing called the First Amendment

Which I've noticed seems to get thrown out the window whenever it's convenient. And wheeled back in whenever some hateful fucker needs to defend him/herself.
God damn, I love America. You'll willingly consider banning violent video games, but no would would dare think of stopping some hate-filled church group (you know the one I'm talking about). ¬_¬

And every time a violent video game ban has come up, it's been shot down in the lower courts. I'm pretty sure the only reason the Supreme Court even agreed to hear the case out of California was to answer the question once and for all, so the lower courts can spend their valuable time making rulings on things that are actually a tough decision to make. As for the WBC, they're well within their rights to do what they're doing, and from what I understand, they have lawyers who check on the constitutionality of whatever they plan on doing before they do it. Mr. Yee didn't really bother to do that before writing his bill.

 

[Phlakes]

Alright, this is the Escapist, as well as a gaming forum; no one is going to vote "yes".

Except for those six eight people as of now who think they're being clever.

OT: No. Nothing that isn't directly harmful should be banned. There are already laws that prevent minors from buying these games, and ultimately the decision is up to their parents.

 

[Super Toast]

There's no way they would, not see how every gamer hates Australia..? :L

I... couldn't make heads or tails of that statement. Can you elaborate?

 

[lacktheknack]

There's no way they would, not see how every gamer hates Australia..? :L

I... couldn't make heads or tails of that statement. Can you elaborate?

He means "Gamers hate Australia because of the rigid classification that bans all excessive content".

 

[Xannieros]

Why stop with games, lets hit movies, books, art, and what ever else is out there that could be offensive to anyone?

 

[RN7]

It depends on your definition of excessive. Games like Dante's Inferno, Darksiders, and (possibly) God of War all contain copious amounts of violence and blood, yet their narrative elements outshadow the viscerality of the content, most of the time.

Then there are games like Splatterhouse, which contain virtually no merit and exist only the satiate the little primal part of the human mind that tingles when it sees something get decapitated. Those are the types of violent games that should be focused upon.

 

[sharinganblossom25]

The whole controversy surrounding violent video games is mostly about political and social saber rattling. Violent things never get banned in America; now show a boob and that'll get you a ban.

So true. Nudity and sex scenes in video games in Europe are completely okay, while a character getting shot is absolutely taboo. Vice versa here in the States, as you've already said, and it really makes no sense.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Oh, for Christ's sake. Everyone knows that we're going to say "no". This is basically a rhetorical question. I don't know why some members of the Escapist feel the need to do this. We all like videogames here, you aren't going to get anyone saying "Yes."
.>
Fine, you aren't going to get anyone saying "yes" SERIOUSLY.
OT:*sigh* No, I don't think violent videogames should be banned in America, because that would violate the First Amendment in many different, very obvious ways.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Alright, this is the Escapist, as well as a gaming forum; no one is going to vote "yes".

Especially considering that the question was about America, which has this little thing called the First Amendment

Which I've noticed seems to get thrown out the window whenever it's convenient. And wheeled back in whenever some hateful fucker needs to defend him/herself.
God damn, I love America. You'll willingly consider banning violent video games, but no would would dare think of stopping some hate-filled church group (you know the one I'm talking about). ¬_¬

And every time a violent video game ban has come up, it's been shot down in the lower courts. I'm pretty sure the only reason the Supreme Court even agreed to hear the case out of California was to answer the question once and for all, so the lower courts can spend their valuable time making rulings on things that are actually a tough decision to make. As for the WBC, they're well within their rights to do what they're doing, and from what I understand, they have lawyers who check on the constitutionality of whatever they plan on doing before they do it. Mr. Yee didn't really bother to do that before writing his bill.

That's the problem right there. If that bill was unconstitutional, it shouldn't have made it as far as the supreme court. It shouldn't have made it before any court. It should've been shredded the as soon as it was submitted to be read. I'm not entirely sure how your system works, but the first group (who would that be at the state level? Senate Committee?) who the bill would be submitted to should've taken one look at it and said "Nope this is unconstitutional" and shredded it and that should've been the last we heard of it. But no, apparently enough people on the whatever-it-is-committee (pardon my ignorance) thought it was ok to throw your precious first amendment out the window "for the children." *heavy sarcastic air quotes*

And as for the WBC, the problem with them is that no one seems to be willing to propose any laws that would limit or halt their activities or those of any group like them, even if that would mean bending the constitution a bit despite the damage the WBC and groups like them cause (much worse than violent video games I'm sure). But bend the constitution "for the children?" *again sarcastic air quotes* Defiantly!

...sorry for the rant. And sorry if I came across as a bit of a jerk, wasn't intentional.

 

[Timedraven 117]

No, never. The day that happens I move, because that's the day the first amendment becomes irrelevent.

not to jump on the wagon like australia did with banning violent video games but i would do the same and while i am at it i will kick the poeple who banned get a car battery and force them to play the god of war series halo series and mass effect 1 and 2 and shadow of the colasos and shock them if they refuse to show them the art of games.
sorry if that seems to excssesive but how else are you going to make a point there skulls are obvisouly to thick to realized that doing sdo will get you to be the most hated person known to man more then hitler because at least the germans think he was if contraversal a great leader.

And again sorry if that was a bit excessive but to say games are not a art form it is all based on opinion and only you are the ones who think they arent look at the indie smash hit minecraft you can make the mono lisa THE MONO LISA you can make mario you can make anything well near anything in minecraft if you made mass effect into a book what would you call? ART just like any other book, movie, painting, song, or anything else well now i am on a rant so i will just end it here for your opinion whitch i will honor no matter what.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Alright, this is the Escapist, as well as a gaming forum; no one is going to vote "yes".

Especially considering that the question was about America, which has this little thing called the First Amendment

Which I've noticed seems to get thrown out the window whenever it's convenient. And wheeled back in whenever some hateful fucker needs to defend him/herself.
God damn, I love America. You'll willingly consider banning violent video games, but no would would dare think of stopping some hate-filled church group (you know the one I'm talking about). ¬_¬

And every time a violent video game ban has come up, it's been shot down in the lower courts. I'm pretty sure the only reason the Supreme Court even agreed to hear the case out of California was to answer the question once and for all, so the lower courts can spend their valuable time making rulings on things that are actually a tough decision to make. As for the WBC, they're well within their rights to do what they're doing, and from what I understand, they have lawyers who check on the constitutionality of whatever they plan on doing before they do it. Mr. Yee didn't really bother to do that before writing his bill.

That's the problem right there. If that bill was unconstitutional, it shouldn't have made it as far as the supreme court. It shouldn't have made it before any court. It should've been shredded the as soon as it was submitted to be read. I'm not entirely sure how your system works, but the first group (who would that be at the state level? Senate Committee?) who the bill would be submitted to should've taken one look at it and said "Nope this is unconstitutional" and shredded it and that should've been the last we heard of it. But no, apparently enough people on the whatever-it-is-committee (pardon my ignorance) thought it was ok to throw your precious first amendment out the window "for the children." *heavy sarcastic air quotes*

And as for the WBC, the problem with them is that no one seems to be willing to propose any laws that would limit or halt their activities or those of any group like them, even if that would mean bending the constitution a bit despite the damage the WBC and groups like them cause (much worse than violent video games I'm sure). But bend the constitution "for the children?" *again sarcastic air quotes* Defiantly!

...sorry for the rant. And sorry if I came across as a bit of a jerk, wasn't intentional.

Well, that is the way the system works; the legislature passes the laws, and if there's a problem with the constitutionality of one, it's taken to the courts, who rule as to whether or not it's constitutional. As for the WBC, I'm pretty sure they've been sued before, and they are pretty widely hated. It wouldn't surprise me if somebody had tried to get a law passed -- I know they're almost always reported with contempt on the news, even on Fox news. The thing is, bending the first amendment for unpopular speech is the worst way to bend it, since it's basically saying "You're free to say what you please, as long as you agree with us." And then there's the fact that, once an exception has been made, the floodgates open for more; in the American legal system, the reliance on Precedent means slippery slope arguments are entirely valid.

Edit: There's also the fact that most of the people voting for the bill most likely knew it was constitutional, and that it would get thrown out as soon as a judge saw it, but they voted for it anyway as re-election insurance. For politicians, sometimes it's more about the re-election than the actual law making.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Pressed Quote instead of Edit, sorry.

 

[The Geek Lord]

I would say no. its on the parents to decide what is good for their kids. I mean, we have he ESRB rating system, and if the kid is using a realistic fake ID, there's obviously more problems then them owning an M rated game.

So no. Parents, take what you're called to heart, and parent.

This.

Funny, your avatar reminded me of that one game with the giant green penis of death.

You know, all of them.

On topic, everyone who voted "yes games should be banned in America because VIOLENCE" needs to stop and look at what they're doing with their life.

... most hated person known to man more then hitler because at least the german think he was if contraversal a great leader.

... *Nazis. Most Germans now-a-days would shoot your for saying they thought Hitler was awesome n' stuff. Just saying, watch how you phrase your sentences.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

He means "Gamers hate Australia because of the rigid classification that bans all excessive content".

Actually, I think he means "Gamers hate Australia because they think the lack of a R18+ rating means all excessive content is banned, which just goes to show what a bunch of uninformed prats most gamers are."

Wait, no, that's what I mean.

If more people took a look at what grabs an MA15+ rating in Australia compared to what the same titles get elsewhere without any change in content, well I'd say "maybe they'd shut their fucking holes for a change" but that's never going to happen.

 

[Jason Danger Keyes]

I was buying M-Rated games from pawn shops and such since I was 13. I never got asked for ID until I was 19 or 20, but then again I lived in a very small town and had never even seen an EB Games until I moved out to the city.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Alright, this is the Escapist, as well as a gaming forum; no one is going to vote "yes".

Especially considering that the question was about America, which has this little thing called the First Amendment

Which I've noticed seems to get thrown out the window whenever it's convenient. And wheeled back in whenever some hateful fucker needs to defend him/herself.
God damn, I love America. You'll willingly consider banning violent video games, but no would would dare think of stopping some hate-filled church group (you know the one I'm talking about). ¬_¬

And every time a violent video game ban has come up, it's been shot down in the lower courts. I'm pretty sure the only reason the Supreme Court even agreed to hear the case out of California was to answer the question once and for all, so the lower courts can spend their valuable time making rulings on things that are actually a tough decision to make. As for the WBC, they're well within their rights to do what they're doing, and from what I understand, they have lawyers who check on the constitutionality of whatever they plan on doing before they do it. Mr. Yee didn't really bother to do that before writing his bill.

That's the problem right there. If that bill was unconstitutional, it shouldn't have made it as far as the supreme court. It shouldn't have made it before any court. It should've been shredded the as soon as it was submitted to be read. I'm not entirely sure how your system works, but the first group (who would that be at the state level? Senate Committee?) who the bill would be submitted to should've taken one look at it and said "Nope this is unconstitutional" and shredded it and that should've been the last we heard of it. But no, apparently enough people on the whatever-it-is-committee (pardon my ignorance) thought it was ok to throw your precious first amendment out the window "for the children." *heavy sarcastic air quotes*

And as for the WBC, the problem with them is that no one seems to be willing to propose any laws that would limit or halt their activities or those of any group like them, even if that would mean bending the constitution a bit despite the damage the WBC and groups like them cause (much worse than violent video games I'm sure). But bend the constitution "for the children?" *again sarcastic air quotes* Defiantly!

...sorry for the rant. And sorry if I came across as a bit of a jerk, wasn't intentional.

Well, that is the way the system works; the legislature passes the laws, and if there's a problem with the constitutionality of one, it's taken to the courts, who rule as to whether or not it's constitutional. As for the WBC, I'm pretty sure they've been sued before, and they are pretty widely hated. It wouldn't surprise me if somebody had tried to get a law passed -- I know they're almost always reported with contempt on the news, even on Fox news. The thing is, bending the first amendment for unpopular speech is the worst way to bend it, since it's basically saying "You're free to say what you please, as long as you agree with us." And then there's the fact that, once an exception has been made, the floodgates open for more; in the American legal system, the reliance on Precedent means slippery slope arguments are entirely valid.

So the legislature can't decide for itself that the thing is unconstitutional and shred it? *sigh* Bureaucracy! I think I saw quote in Civilization V about that today, something about us being saved from it because it's so inefficient. Wish I could remember the exact quote. I can remember the one from Civilization IV, but that one doesn't really apply.
Anyway about WBC, I'm well aware of the fine line that exists there; but we're not talking about unpopular speech, we're talking about hate speech. Speech the degrades and slanders another social group should not be protected by any sort of constitution under any circumstance.
...but we've gotten off-topic.