Silicon Valley's Newspaper Backs Schwarzenegger on Video Game Law Appeal

Why is anyone responding to JT? THIS TOPIC HAS NOTHING DO DO WITH HIM!

I am curious about which games the author consideres the "most twisted, sadistic images that the mind can imagine". I can't think of anything in games nearly as gross as in most horror flicks.

"It shouldn’t be so hard to protect children from the most twisted, sadistic images that the mind can imagine…"

You mean the kind that your newspaper provides when covering murderers, rapists, terrorists, and bloody wars?

Oh yes, that pesky, annoying "proof" judges do so require.

so, the SJMN is the de facto fascist propagandist in the area. gotcha.

Quitters never Win, Winners never Quit,
but those who never win and never quit are idiots.

Yeah. God Forbid that a judge should demand real proof instead of hysteria before passing a law that would effect the entire industry, not just violent games. It's like saying 'Well, it looked like he commited murder, so why should we wait around for stupid stuff like evidence?'.

Typical right-wing propaganda.

"It shouldn’t be so hard to protect children from the most twisted, sadistic images that the mind can imagine…"

Okay, let's do that. But right before we censor video games, let's slap the old ban hammer on television, movies, books, and religion. I really can't think of something worse than forcing a child to worship a an evil Bronze Age war God that murdered millions of people.

"Leave media freedom alone" > "PROTECT TEH CHILDREN"

If anything, the children need to be protected from the stupidity and false morality of religious morons on the right.

"Schwarzenegger, in his prior career as action actor, committed his share of tasteless violence. Consider his defense of video game limits an act of penance…"

This line says a lot to me. The writer of said article obviously has a problem with violent media. Never mind the fact that violence has been around in media for centuries, if not longer (Shakespeare anyone?). No, this person only cares about what they think these things do to people. After all, they are smarter than us. The newspaper said so.

@Conejo

I don't think I need to remind you about probability. It is much more probable that religious idiots on the right will support freedom-raping forms of censorship.

And yes, it's a real shame that some on the left feel as if they must cater to the superstitious members of their constituancies by taking stronge stances in the name of "teh children."

(And Lieberman is a token-conservative, though independent at the moment).

Note to the motards at the San Jose Mercury News:

The burden of proof has to be high, since Arnold is directly contradicting a Constitutional Amendment.

Besides that, children are already being protected. They're just being protected from idiots like Leland Yee:

The First Amendment clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

So why are morons like Leland Yee making laws that are abridging the freedom of speech?

Sure, they try to use the old “you can’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater” rule(an example always given of how freedom of speech is not absolute), that you can’t use your speech to put others in harm’s way.

However, if you’re going to infringe on a constitutional right like freedom of speech based on the idea that the speech you’re trying to ban is dangerous, then you better damn well show the people absolute proof that the speech in question(in this case, “violent” video games) is dangerous. This has NEVER been done. There is no proof that any harm will come of anyone who plays a “violent” video game.

If there is a danger so clear and so threatening to the American people that causes the above dumbbells like Yee to step on the First Amendment, wouldn’t any rational thinking person have to believe that the danger would have to be so obvious and clear that there would be no argument against it? You’re directly contradicting a Constitutional amendment.

We, the American people, have not been given any valid reason to believe that this abridging of our freedom of speech is necessary. There just simply isn’t any evidence at all of any danger from “violent” video games. This “protection” from “violent” video games isn’t needed, but please feel free to use my tax dollars for protection from things like 10-foot hurricane storm surge entering the workplace.

Oh, and it's not an act of penance, more like an act of hypocrisy, since he's also made money on his likeness being used for games based on the Terminator movies, and True Lies, and Total Recall.

"Common sense standard?" That's what our court system is about?

@Pandralisk

probability has little to do with historical fact, though.

keep in mind Mrs. Gore (with extensive effort on her husband's part and their democrat friends) forced the "Explicit Lyrics" stickers to be put on music. this was the halfway point, since she was trying to get "porn rock" completely banned from the US.

the track record exists for nutjobs from the left AND right.

"...that playing violent videos causes..."

The fact that the paper called them "videos" is proof-positive of their cluelessness on the actual topic.

the fact still stands that they can't dupe the public into accepting a wide-scale censorship yet.

like all fascists, they must erode the will of the people bit by bit, medium by medium.

what happened there? my post got cut off.....It said


Violence and Sadistic gore:

Titus Andronicus ('greater than' symbol might be the problem) than Manhunt 2

We should have the people of California take a vote. All in favor of defending this lousy bill can foot the bill once it is ruled unconstitutional (again) and they can add on to the $324,000 they already owe the ESA. Does anyone know if Blagojevich has paid up already? I wonder what the judge would do if he continues to "waffle" on his payment.

@Pandralisk

Not to be preachy or condescending here but you do realize that the vast majority of the anti-game legislation has come from the left correct? Its not like Hillary Clinton and Leland Yee are to the right of Rush Limbaugh you know.

They ARE right in the fact that it shouldn't be so hard to protect them. What we need are parents that GIVE A DAMN.

@ chris

Yeah, html tags (less than and greater than arrows, actually) don't seem to play well here. Hence my quad-post yesterday X.x

It amuses me that people considered "intelligent" enough to write an editorial for a published newspaper (yes, that particular phallacy exists even today) can have not one iota of common sense.

The fact that folks of this guys ilk ignore facts that are widely available, publicised on this very site, just goes to show that they don't want facts - they just want their beliefs. And one of those beliefs is that we, as gamers, are the greatest threat in the world.

Based upon the lack of research or facts in the Merc's editorial, I think what they're really trying to say, basically, is that video games don't advertise in their newspaper...preferring a more 'Internet' variety of marketing...and they're kind of bitter about that. Lousy Internet kids.

I guess that's a problem? I don't know. I don't read their paper. We do pick up a copy once a week; we own a bird.

@jccalhoun graduate student

That's no fun.

Hey Alex, if you want some free help with spelling, install Firefox 2-it has a nice built in spell checker for everything you do. Internet Explorer 7 doesn't have that...