Rush Limbaugh Defends Video Game Free Speech

[Something Amyss]

Not to bash Limbaugh, but this is something that's been dealt with time and again. Unfortunately, people think video games are different because they're interactive. This is the crux of the SCOTUS hearing on the matter, and what determines where things go in the future. While I happen to agree with what he said, it's a strawman, or at least an unintentional distortion of the argument. While I disagree with the argument being put forth, it is what it is. And while I dislike Rush, he is a sharp man who tends to know what he's saying. Ergo, while I agree with him, I also think he's being deliberately misleading.

That being said, I do appreciate that his stance on this is rather consistent. A lot of conservative pundits and leaders are anti-censorship until it comes to things they or their base don't like, such a video games.

 

[Cocamaster]

President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001. I don't blame him for saying it at that particular time, but later the administration kept the same mindset when it came to the invasion of Iraq. And WHO was pressing for the war in Iraq?

You forgot the part about being "in context".

He's adressing the other nations in the world, not his own citizenship.

 

[Blind Sight]

Unfortunately you are incorrect about the original content.

No, I'm not.

Though "citizenship" wasn't defined until the 14th amendment, the original constitution ordered federal government to define a "uniform rule of naturalization" for the people of the Unites States which determined what it meant to be an american, which they did in 1802, ony 15 years after the Costitution was signed and 11 after the 1st amendment, and contained the following:

1. He shall declare on oath or affirmation, in some competent court, at least three years before his admission, that it was, bonafide, his intention to renounce for ever all allegiance to any sovereign or state of which he was a subject.

2. He shall swear or affirm that he will support the Constitution of the United States.

3. He shall satisfy the court that he has resided within the United States at least five years, and within the State or Territory where such court is held at least one year, before he can be admitted. It must further appear to the satisfaction of the court that he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

4. He shall renounce every title of nobility held by him. Subsequent laws modified this act in the following important particulars:

So, the Costitution applied only tho those who followed these rules. These wee the "citizenship" of the 1800's.

That portion of the Constitution can be seen as an early citizenship defition, sure, I'll go with that. However, even with this definition of citizenship, I see nowhere in here that states definitely that citizens are the only ones who receive rights under U.S. law, just that in order to become an American citizen you must follow the laws of the Constitution.

When the Constitution was being made, as well as in earlier American declarations, this wasn't just a political statement, it was a philosophical one. There is so much influence from John Locke in the Constitution, and the American Revolution was just filled with propaganda focusing on the 'natural rights of all men'. Of course, back then it really did just mean white men, but our definition of people has changed over the times. The Constitution was without a doubt founded on a philosophical principle of natural rights, and that's why it states people rather then citizens. Remember, this was during the rationalist period, when stuff like 'equal rights for all men' was emerging in power elites. Sure, it didn't work out as well as it was supposed to, but this is still what the Constitution is based on.

Also, since this is a debate about the current Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment is further prove that even if the Constitution meant citizens instead of people, the Constitution now enforces the rights of all people rather then just citizens. The Constitution is updated for a reason, amendments like the Eighth serve to further re-enforce the rights of the people, rather then citizens. If you compare the Eighth Amendment to the English Bill of Rights or Article Five of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they have very similar wording, because in each of the cases they're very specific in stating people, rather then specifically citizens. I'm discussing the current Constitution, not the one that still legalized slavery.

 

[Glerken]

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.

 

[Netrigan]

Well Im confused.

He could lead people to our side, but why.
If Im not mistaken, isn't he pro- family values, tradition, and what not. You know the same thing the people who are agianst us be are for

There's a difference between those who use the air waves to promote (or oppose) things... and those who use the government to do it. It's a very easy ploy to confuse the two with people who aren't following the situation very closely.

You can be pro-First Amendment, and be against the speech in question. There are a whole lot of video games that I don't think a child should be playing. I am not opposed to any group that bangs the drum loudly about the Postal 2's and Manhunt's out there, because parents should be involved in the video game choices their children make and retailers shouldn't be selling these games to minors. Keeping pressure on ensures that the 80% compliance rate stays high. I'd even go so far as agreeing with their attempts to shame developers into make more kid-friendly content.

But I'm completely against government regulation of this or any entertainment media.

And I'm a life-long Republican. George W. is the only Republican nominee in the last 20 years who hasn't gotten my support... although I voted against Gore/Lieberman on First Amendment grounds, since both have been up to their necks in government oversight schemes against the music, video game, and movie industry. I have never found my views to be unusual within the party. The Religious Right aside (which often teams up with the liberal Feminist movement) has it's pornography agenda, but mostly the party tends to be anti-regulation, even when said regulation would help them achieve their cultural goals.

 

[Blind Sight]

What I don't get is all those American conservatives (Limbaugh included) who seem to think that the constitution says that if you're not an American citizen you don't have any rights within America (thus giving them justification for treating foreign terrorist suspects like shit, etc.). Bullshit, the constitution says PEOPLE, not CITIZENS. Jesus people, at least read the damn constitution before you start to 'defend' it, I'm Canadian and I know more about it then you do.

It reads "We the People of the United States", in an age where "citizenship" was applied to individual states, whose entire citizenry was collectivelly reffered to "the United States People".

Meaning that, in fact, "People" means "Citizens" in the U.S. Costitution.

I'm nether a U.S. American nor Canadian, but I know more about their Constitution than you do, apparently. Besides that, Canada's Immigration laws are strictier than in the U.S. You should know that.

Unfortunately you are incorrect about the original content. The Founding Fathers wished for America to be an example to the rest of the world, to show that their society was one of liberty and freedom (all this was, of course, in theory). The American Constitution served as a document of a new kind of political thought grounded in the logic of liberal thinkers like John Locke. Locke's concept of 'natural rights', that every person has a core set of inalienable rights as set forth by God was a huge part of the American political movement during the Revolution, and continued after when they were making the Constitution. The Constitution says people and means it, 'we the people' is used, but citizenship wasn't defined in the Constitution until the Fourteenth Amendment I believe. Yet the document states people, as can be seen in this youtube video by a member of the American Civil Liberties Union (who, I think we can safely say, has more knowledge on the subject them both of us combined):

(Skip to 1:15 for the part of the Constitution that defines citizens and recognizes the natural rights of 'people')

Meh.

I see you changed your post from the nasty attack from before, I wanted you to know I'm actually a fourth year political science student, if you want technical, I'll get technical. Of course, the fact that your post was just a mouthy response with no attempt to debate, I figure I'll just write you off as a troll.

 

[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.

 

[Rolling 20]

There was a new episode of Family Guy about Rush Limbaugh... I was surprised to find that Rush Limbaugh's name was in the credits.... I think he may have ACTUALLY voiced himself in the show....

If that's true then he must have had a SERIOUS PR makeover...

 

[Cocamaster]

That portion of the Constitution can be seen as an early citizenship defition, sure, I'll go with that. However, even with this definition of citizenship, I see nowhere in here that states definitely that citizens are the only ones who receive rights under U.S. law, just that in order to become an American citizen you must follow the laws of the Constitution.

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Declaration_of_Independence#Text

People of the United States
The phrase "People of the United States" has sometimes been understood to mean "citizens." This approach reasons that, if the political community speaking for itself in the Preamble ("We the People") includes only citizens, by negative implication it specifically excludes non-citizens in some fashion. It has also been construed to mean something like "all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States." The phrase has been construed as affirming that the national government created by the Constitution derives its sovereignty from the people, as well as confirming that the government under the Constitution was intended to govern and protect "the people" directly, as one society, instead of governing only the states as political units. The Court has also understood this language to mean that the sovereignty of the government under the U.S. Constitution is superior to that of the States. Stated in negative terms, the Preamble has been interpreted as meaning that the Constitution was not the act of sovereign and independent states. In short, although in some ways the meaning and implications of the Preamble may be contested, at the least it can be said that the Preamble demonstrates that the federal government of the United States was not created as an agreement between or coalition of the states. Instead, it was the product of "the People" with the power to govern the People directly, unlike the government under the Articles of Confederation, which only governed the People indirectly through rules imposed on the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#People_of_the_United_States

The "People of the United States" were those who lived as members of the Colonies, and the Constitution applies to the people of these colonies, who having renounced to their previous elegances, are now Americans.

It could not be more cut and dry.

 

[Volothos]

What is this? I don't even. I'm confused.

-friend whispers into my ear-

He's on our side? OK then!

 

[mrsultana]

Then, 5 years later, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would vote for it.

Democrats, Republicans... what's really the difference?

Obama voted for the Patriot Act? I don't believe it for a second.

 

[theironbat46]

Well I'll be damned....

 

[Netrigan]

Then, 5 years later, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would vote for it.

Democrats, Republicans... what's really the difference?

Obama voted for the Patriot Act? I don't believe it for a second.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms

 

[Cocamaster]

Obama voted for the Patriot Act? I don't believe it for a second.

My mistake. I thought he was in office in 2001. Only 1 Senator originally voted against it when it passed.

I should have said Clinton and Biden; though Obama did extend it as president in 2009.

 

[manaman]

Honestly, I'd rather rip off someone's face and drink their blood before I agree with Rush Limbaugh...

But, I S'pose this means theres a little good in everyone.

Exactly, disagreeing with someone on principle certainly proves you to be the more noble upstanding person. It wouldn't display a horrible bias that makes a people closed to reason.

I'm not saying you have to agree with someone, but you should at least give things a moments through before you dismiss them out of hand because you they don't agree immediately with they way you have decided to see the world.

 

[andeve3]

It's a trap!

 

[King_Serpent]

The problem with transfats is they are SO widespread these days and it's not like you can exactly ask a restaurant when you walk in.

So actually the government have a damn good right to try and get them banned if they're bad for your health. They can't ban you from going to McDonald's and KFC, but they should at least try and make sure something incredibly dangerous is banned.

OT: All politicians have good and bad points, this guy is obviously no exception.

I was just using that as an example. Despite that, my point still stands. Yes, trans fats are dangerous. Smoking and alcohol are INCREDIBLY dangerous, yet those are still around.

My problem with the idea that "Well, the government is just protecting you from dangerous stuff" is that it can be applied to so many things. Give the government too much control, all in the name of security, and you'll be in major trouble down the line.

Irony is you have Brian as your avatar.

 

[Glerken]

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.

 

[scorptatious]

Any politician who stands for our rights is fine by me.