@ Link89

"Honestly, I wouldn’t have any problem with legislation that forbade kids to buy an “M” rated game, rated by ESRB. That would make games equal to movies, and yes, a kid shouldn’t be able to buy an “R” rated movie. But you cannot slap a vague descripton onto games to legislate, there needs to be specific criteria. I fully support ESRB. why cant they embrace that, they all talk abotu hot coffee, but before that, the game was still rated MATURE, crappy excuse."

Kids can buy an R rated movie legally. Those restrictions you see are not legal but company policies. There is no law which says a minor can't buy R. Music is not legally regulated and has no legal restrictions on age only a warning. The only legal restrictions of film and print is of a pornographic nature ie Porn movies and Porn mags. Please get more informed on the policies of this nature and know that if Oregon passes this crap your state will lose more money in court. When it gets contested and shot down and the state is charged with legal fees its your tax money being spent.

Anyone else reminded of Clockwork Orange?

"There was me, that is Alex, and my three droogs, that is Pete, Georgie, and Dim, and we sat in the Korova Milkbar trying to make up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening. The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence."

-- Alex de Large (a very, very young Malcolm McDowell)

Hmm, as a resident of Oregon, I will be definately be saying something about this to my elected officials.
Honestly, I wouldn't have any problem with legislation that forbade kids to buy an "M" rated game, rated by ESRB. That would make games equal to movies, and yes, a kid shouldn't be able to buy an "R" rated movie. But you cannot slap a vague descripton onto games to legislate, there needs to be specific criteria. I fully support ESRB. why cant they embrace that, they all talk abotu hot coffee, but before that, the game was still rated MATURE, crappy excuse.
*rolls up wrists* time to push the angry email button.

this will fail, 'M' games are suitable for 17-year-olds, and they are under 18 as well.

its kind of sad and pathetic that maybe if not only jacky boy but some of these moron politicians actully sat down and played some manhunt or grand theft auto then they would realize that all this anti game crap is nonsense and is about as stupid as it would be if some insane soccer mom started saying that "road runner cartoons are turning my son gay" or some weird crap like that..

my point is this anti game crap is dumb and a waste of time and george carlin still said it best "you know what i say F*** the children"

Man fuck BILL wanna see some disturbed kids.
Than they should meet me and and my friends or look in the ghetto's america ha's so much off
And not look at gamers.

*yawns*


Jeez i agree with nightwing how much longer until this crap goes away.

This world would be a lot better if Mr Floppy was president!

Damn i wish i had the box set for unhappily ever after..


hey dennis so what "conspiercy" (i think thats wrong) is jacky boy coming up with now?

Lmao Hey i agree i hate jacky boy as much as the next guy maybe more I was just curious..


my bad

I think what we really need isn't anti-speech legislation, but rather a legislator education program and enforcement amendment focused on the powers that are granted to the government, specifically congress by the Constitution.

1. Only legislators can personally write and propose legislation. Aides, special interests, etc. should be barred from having write access to the text of the bills. This is a huge problem right now, as all sorts of crap gets inserted into bills without the legislators even knowing about it.
2. Before any legislator can propose or even vote on any bill, they must undergo an intensive, 200 hour training course on constitutional scholarship.
3. Any legislator that proposes or votes to approve any bill that is later found to be unconstitutional in part or in the whole will receive a demerit.
4. A legislator with three demerits will have his/her bill-writing/voting rights suspended until he/she re-takes and passes the original 200 hour training course.
5. If the legislator accumulates 6 demerits, even after the second training course, he/she is automatically removed from office and is forever barred from holding public office in the future. By this point, it should be obvious that the legislator is profoundly unqualified for his/her position.

There would also need to be a similar amendment that covers the executive branch, as evidenced by the current resident's propensity to do whatever he damn well pleases.

Oh, and maybe there should be:

6. If a bill is proposed that is so obviously unconstitutional that my astonishingly dimwitted, elderly dog can recognize by using it as toilet paper, the legislator should be stripped, drizzled in raspberry sauce and Alpo, and forced to sing "I'm a Lumberjack" in Madison Square Gardens while being chased around the stage by hungry, toothless Chihuahuas.

"What about vampires and zombies? "

Vampires and zombies are human being too! So are leprechaun and elves!!

Seriously, we all know where this bill is going to end up. In the "The videogame industry bought another judge! They blackmailed the state by threatening to close their companies there! I am right for I am Jack Thompson" garbage bin.

"…a video game depicting serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel."

Oh my, I feel I may be going away for some time if this bill gets through. If only I had known sooner, all the poor sims may not have died by my evil hands. Curses! why was it so enjoyable to slay them by placeing them in a house filled with rugs and a single fire place, then making them light the fire place. Causing the whole house to catch fire. /scarcasm

Any way, because this is bill is so open to interpritation it can be applied to a number of games. But some things are very unclear, like zombies for instance. If they are dead, are they still concidered human? or would they be former humans so it's ok to kill them in horable ways. Or what about mutated humans? Since they are not technicly human any more, is it ok? what about huminoid robots? They are shaped like humans but are not human. They must be more specific about things like this.

Yeah! More anti-youth ageism from the censorcrats. These politicans have got to get it through there heads. Minors have First Amendment rights. The GOVERNMENT cannot restrict minors access to Free Speech materials that are not obscene as to them unless they have some strong consistant undisputible evidence that the Speech in question is harmful (of which there is none). If a parent doesn't want there child to have it, then fine, but beyond any proven harm it's the sole responisbility of the parent to keep there child away from Speech they find innappropriate or unsuitable for them. Otherwise we might as well ban Harry Potter books and the Holy Bible and Quran from minors as well as there are parents out there who don't want there children to have those things either (Like Christian fundamentalists parents when it comes to Harry Potter books and the Holy Quran and atheists, jewish and muslim parents when it comes to the Holy Bible.)

I think I've finally figured it out.

For quite some time, it has baffled me how politicians have so much trouble distinguishing the difference between "reality" and "pretend".

Then it hit me. Politicians spend so much of their time telling lies, and trying to sound like they sincerely believe their own lies. The most professional politicians actually lose their ability to separate truth from fiction, so it's no surprise that they are horrified by what they see in video games. They have no ability to comprehend that they are seeing "pretend" violence against "unreal" persons.

I suppose the same could hold true for some lawyers.

What we really need, are laws to protect us from out-of-touch politicians. (and lawyers.)

Those politicians are simply embarrasing, oy. They're self-proffessed Democrats, but they treat the Constitution like Republicans do when they try a law, oy. I feel sympathy for your cause, but it is ZETTAI impossible, oy. The best way to argue against them is not the reactionist, Bill O'Reilly/ Jack Offson, way but the liberal, patient style. Like I've heard about Nancy Pelosi oy. Try to cooperate to work more effectively, oy.

[...] GamePolitics reports the Oregon House of Reps. is trying to blaze new trails by introducing a law making it unlawful to sell “ultra-violent” video games to people of the great state under 18 years of age. The bill was introduced by Rep. Arnie Roblan (D) and has no provision on what punishment would be given for those breaking the law, it also grants exception for parents who choose to purchase the game for their child. So, what’s the point of this thing again? [...]

Yay. Another one.

From the great words of Yakko, "Could someone please stop them from saying 'The Dragon'?"

In Jackson County Oregon, they just shuttered their public libraries, so there is PLENTY of ignorance in some sections of the state.

"…a video game depicting serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel."

Do politicians/lawmakers always use such vague nomenclature?

"…a video game depicting serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel."

Which is?...

*Yeah, I usually say more, but I'm only half-awake...

"a specific exception is granted when parents choose to buy a violent game for their offspring."

This is very stupid... What they are saying that is illegal to sell these violent games to little Timmy and any clerk or store doing so will be punished, but if little Timmy comes into the store with his Mom and she buys it, then it's all good?

I just don't understand.

I am sorry but why are you tossing out the baby with the bath water? what do you say? not old enough to vote??...

oy....

This just proves these people don't want these bills to pass. They're obviously in it for the free publicity.

"…a video game depicting serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel."

First, who decides what is heinous, atrocious and/or cruel ? Since that it is too broad a term we could ban any game with even the littlest cruelty in the game.

Secondly, define what a human is ? If a game has alot of gore, but the characters are all anthromorphic animals, this game would go through.

Chat with live girls for free...

...