Rush Limbaugh Defends Video Game Free Speech

[Blindswordmaster]

I've always loved listening to Rush, you have to admit he's quite entertaining, and while I don' agree with him an every point he makes, I'm glad he's on our side.

 

[Huxleykrcc]

Link [http://kotaku.com/5677274/rush-limbaugh-defends-video-games-free-speech-says-this-is-where-the-battle-is]

I don't know what to think about this. I mean, I really hate Rush Limbaugh's pro-right wing politics, and yet here he is defending video games' rights to free speech. One particular thing I'd like to highlight is this gem:

"If you're gonna start saying that video games are raunchy, then how the hell do you leave cable television alone?"

(Apologies if this is posted in the wrong place.)

That's cause MOST people have no idea what the hell Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck say. THEY ARE NOT REPUBLICANS OR EVEN RIGHT WING FOR THAT MATTER!!!

They are liberals. Not Democratic-progressive, I wanna hug Osama bin laden and have a "Beer summit" with him to solve all our problems. Tehy are literally, liberals in the sense of total freedom... with the exception of a FEW traditionalist values (abortion), but frankly, if you're HONESTLY shallow enough to be pist at a politician because of they're views on abortion AND even gay marriage, you're a dumbass. Yes yes, discrimination is bad against homosexuals, but at least they're relatively free in EVERY ASPECT OF THEIR LIVES, except marriage. I just think there's more important things (who the fuck cares if you're homosexual when China comes nad steals your babies, or if you have no money to have a wedding in the first place!).

Anyways, all of this is to say the of course Rush Limbaugh supports it because Rush Limbaugh hates government. government should stay the hell outta our lives!

And you know something? I agree.

I don't think you know what liberal means.

According to what I learned in (get this) school, in a global sense America is very right wing. The Republicans, in practice, are very right-wing; the Democrats in theory are centrist, and in practice somewhat right of center. The lack of left-wing politics has been considered as a reason for some American; I have some issues with that argument that I won't go into, but nonetheless, it's worth noting.

 

[Cocamaster]

It's about a video game having the right to have nudity in it.

I have never seen a clamor to "ban nudity" from games. As a matter of fact, I see it more every day.

There's a huge difference between "showing outrage" towards something and "making it illegal".

 

[benbenthegamerman]

Much rather just watch the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

There are 50 million people at his rally I swears it! If they get to falsify numbers for Glenn's rally we should get to for ours >.<

i was one of them! I brought a sign that said "Ghostcrawler Promised Me Sanity"

 

[Huxleykrcc]

It's about a video game having the right to have nudity in it.

I have never seen a clamor to "bad nudity" from games. As a matter of fact, I se it more every day.

There's a huge difference between "showing outrage" towards something and "making it illegal".

Ditto. Did anyone know that Congress actually passed laws restricting game sales in various manners after the Hot Coffee incident?

You didn't? Exactly. While we should be vigilant against restrictions to free speech, you have to remember that outrage has ADHD--it passes--and most of what politicians say in these "crises" is just lip service. I don't think we have to worry.

 

[JeanLuc761]

Irony is you have Brian as your avatar.

How is that ironic? I like Family Guy, and I like Brian's character. He's the most liberal character in the history of EVER, but that's part of his charm/humor.

 

[Cocamaster]

...the Democrats in theory are centrist, and in practice somewhat right of center.

What!? I live in a social democracy, and even I see Democrats are left to far-left today.

There are no centrists in Washington.

 

[Agayek]

I don't really know enough about Rush Limbaugh to have an actual opinion on him. I don't pay him enough attention. But nor do I pay any attention to a lot of people with extremist views. Much rather just watch the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

It's a good rule of thumb to avoid any "news source" with a political agenda. No matter what the politics, they tend to be utter idiots when they decide that the other side is "The Great Satan" and can never be right on anything. This is a major reason that I hate our current political climate in the U.S. And I'm not JUST hating on the Republicans for this.

However, despite however you feel about Limbaugh, you have to admit that in this case he is right. If it bothers you so much, comfort yourself with the fact that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

This post struck me as rather amusing. Stewart's at least fairly honest about, but he most certainly has a political agenda.

On topic, I'm really not surprised by this. I'm not hugely familiar with Limbaugh, but I do know he's a hardcore conservative, and that means minimal government. He's just not being hypocritical about it like most of the neocons that have been running the Republic party for the last couple decades.

 

[Breaker deGodot]

Not surprising that he would say something like this. He IS for free speech, after all.

 

[Callate]

Any case that has the ACLU and Rush Limbaugh together on one side and Leland Yee and Arnold Schwarzenegger together on the opposing side has got to be recognized to be a little weird.

It really can't fairly be described as one side's politics favoring one side of the issue and vice versa. Take a look over at Gamepolitics.com, run a search for "amicus brief", and you'll get a pretty good idea how strangely things shake out.

 

[Breaker deGodot]

I started liking him since he appeared in Family Guy. And I don't even like Family Guy. Because of this he's on +2 now.

Coming from Kim Jong Il, that doesn't mean much.

 

[Huxleykrcc]

...the Democrats in theory are centrist, and in practice somewhat right of center.

What!? I live in a social democracy, and even I see Democrats are left to far-left today.

There are no centrists in Washington.

In fact, politicians tend to centralize to appeal to the biggest number of people.

We have the smallest tax burden of all first-world nations, relatively limited social programs and prevailing pro-traditionalism sentiments.

Middle-left is pseudo-socialism to socialism. Far-left is pseudo-communism. I don't really care what "you see;" your personal experience is irrelevant when compared to the massive amount of theorizing and studies performed by knowledgeable individuals (that isn't an insult--my personal experience is as anecdotal as yours by definition).

 

[Steve the Pocket]

What did ou expect? Liberals are the ones that like to have the government tell you how to live your life, not republicans.

Yeah that whole CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE and that IF YOU ARE NOT WITH US YOU ARE WITH THE TERRORISTS bit were soooooooooooooooooo part of the liberal agenda.[/quote]

Fact: Obama supported the USA PATRIOT Act and approved its renewal.

Fact: Obama has gone on record as saying he thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman and has yet to make any statement as to the constitutionality of states banning it.

The world is bigger than videogames.

Dude, you picked the wrong place to say that.

 

[MoeTheMonk]

Yet another reason to like Rush Limbaugh. I know alot of you guys think he's far right... and he is. BUT, what he says makes sense most of the time, and he's pretty informative and interesting to listen to.

 

[Blind Sight]

snip

I really hate to be a source snob, but it is wikipedia, although the cases it sources are at least correct.

You're assuming that the Constitution means the same thing now as it did back then. The amendments have changed it in such a way that it recognizes far more. There's a reason why those amendments focus on 'natural persons' by which they mean any human being. Even if you believe that the original Constitution was specific only to citizens, our viewpoints towards how the Constitution reads has changed with time, especially after the Fourteenth Amendment.

I hope this link works, cause God it's long, I really hate JSTOR:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/25115552?searchUrl=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3Dunited%2Bstates%2Bconstitution%2Bhuman%2Brights%26f0%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q1%3D%26f1%3Dall%26wc%3Don%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D%26dc.AfricanAmericanStudies%3DAfrican%2BAmerican%2BStudies%26dc.AfricanStudies%3DAfrican%2BStudies%26dc.AmericanIndianStudies%3DAmerican%2BIndian%2BStudies%26dc.AsianStudies%3DAsian%2BStudies%26dc.Feminist%2526amp%253BWomensStudies%3DFeminist%2B%2526amp%253B%2BWomen%2527s%2BStudies%26dc.Philosophy%3DPhilosophy%26dc.PoliticalScience%3DPolitical%2BScience%26Search%3DSearch

An indepth look into how the Constitution can apply to all people, using Frederick Douglass to show how the Constitution SHOULD apply to all people, even though blacks weren't seen as citizens, they were seen as property. It underlines key parts of the Constitution that reflect fundamental human rights in 'natural persons.'

I'm just kind of tired of arguing, so I'll agree to disagree cause I think we're getting off-topic.

To the OP: Well it's good to see he supports something decent for once.

 

[Cocamaster]

In fact, politicians tend to centralize to appeal to the biggest number of people.

We have the smallest tax burden of all first-world nations, relatively limited social programs and prevailing pro-traditionalism sentiments.

Middle-left is pseudo-socialism to socialism. Far-left is pseudo-communism. I don't really care what "you see;" your personal experience is irrelevant when compared to the massive amount of theorizing and studies performed by knowledgeable individuals (that isn't an insult--my personal experience is as anecdotal as yours by definition).

Ok, ok, I get your point. I accept that from a global perspective the United states must seem pretty "right wing".

From their own people's perspective, however, it's a different issue altogether. Definitions change depending on location. A "conservative" in Germany is not the same as in Australia.

On the other hand, my the "classical" definition of far-right, we have theocracies, which the US, being secular, is not. So characterizing theyr entire political specrtum as "right of center to far right" would be a mistake, no matter how you percieve it.

First, you define the "center", and from the U.S.'s center, Democrats are left-wing.

And I stand by my statement: Washington has no centrists, no matter what they proyect.

 

[irishstormtrooper]

Well, at least he's being consistent in him hating the government doing anything.

 

[Cocamaster]

You're assuming that the Constitution means the same thing now as it did back then. The amendments have changed it in such a way that it recognizes far more. There's a reason why those amendments focus on 'natural persons' by which they mean any human being. Even if you believe that the original Constitution was specific only to citizens, our viewpoints towards how the Constitution reads has changed with time, especially after the Fourteenth Amendment.

But we're not talking about the definition of "citizen", not even as defined by the 14th amendment.

We are talking about to whom the Constitution applied to when signed.

I think I made my case pretty clear and simple, it applied to "the people of the United States". Unless you now will argue that "The United States" meant "all the nations of the world", I don't see how you can imply that the constitution was meant to apply to everyone. It's just not logical that the founding fathers of the Nation would write a constitution of the United States that covered those NOT of the United States at the time, then went to define the laws on how those could BECOME americans.

That violates common sense.

Obviously the definition of "american" has changed to include (though sometimes exclude) more people, but the intend that the Constitution applies to americans only is pretty obvious and, in my opinion, pretty litteral, too.

And I'm afraid I'm not going to pay $38 just to win an argument over the internet; I would rather try and fail for free.

I also agree to dissagree, and call it a day.

Thank you for being a respectful debater. I hope we can chat again.

 

[Huxleykrcc]

In fact, politicians tend to centralize to appeal to the biggest number of people.

We have the smallest tax burden of all first-world nations, relatively limited social programs and prevailing pro-traditionalism sentiments.

Middle-left is pseudo-socialism to socialism. Far-left is pseudo-communism. I don't really care what "you see;" your personal experience is irrelevant when compared to the massive amount of theorizing and studies performed by knowledgeable individuals (that isn't an insult--my personal experience is as anecdotal as yours by definition).

Ok, ok, I get your point. I accept that from a global perspective the United states must seem pretty "right wing".

From their own people's perspective, however, it's a different issue altogether. Definitions change depending on location. A "conservative" in Germany is not the same as in Australia.

First, you define the "center", and from the U.S.'s center, Democrats are left-wing.

And I stand by my statement: Washington has no centrists, no matter what they proyect.

An objective perspective is most useful, and in an objective perspective, America is a right-wing country, in the most common sense of the phrase.

You can stand by the statement all you like, but I would suggest you (get this) try proving it first (and, for that matter, define it. What do you mean by centrist? How close to centrist does someone have to before they're essentially centrist in your view?). Political Scientists say American politicians tend to centralize. That is obviously not the same as "becoming centrist," but it would suggest Washington is more centrist than most of America (it is; that's the nature of popular vote).

 

[lacktheknack]

What did ou expect? Liberals are the ones that like to have the government tell you how to live your life, not republicans.

Yea, it's totally not republicans who want the government to tell you how to live your life...
As long as, you know, you're not gay or a pregnant woman.

To now act like Conservatives have always been defending video games is to just blindly ignore the past. Yea, Limbaugh defended video games, and that's very nice. But don't act like all the people over at Fox news are all pro-video games free speech and such.

Remember Mass Effect?

They were somehow convinced that Bioware was selling interactive porn to kids. That has little to do with free speech.

It's about video games rights to free speech.
That's what this thread is about.

And the Mass Effect debacle had nothing to do with free speech. It was about (the lack of) selling porn to children.

It's about a video game having the right to have nudity in it.

That wasn't FOX's problem. Daggerfall had nudity in it Prey had nudity in it, Dante's Inferno, no one cared. They thought the game was being marketed to children, which is why they got all mad at it.