Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Some years back (I don't know how long), PETA bought a walk-in freezer, like the ones they may have a restaurants. It was deduced that they needed it for only 2 reasons, because they asked an expert (where you find one, I have no idea): 1) Store lots of meat (eleminated immediately, because, well, they're PETA), and 2) corpses.

PETA kills more animals than the average kennel.

As for the cruel-free cookies and the suffering cows and chickens, you should tell that vegetarian that unless she was once a cow or chicken, then she should shut up.

At 12/16/05 03:58 PM, Blackmagic wrote: A step in the right direction.

I'm sorry, but if you're serious, then you're crazy. It breaks a bunch of the basic rights that Americans have. I have an uncle who's contained every time he goes into an airport because he has the same name as a Columbian drug lord, despite correct ID, looking TOTALLY different, and being Cuban (there's a DIFFERENCE!). THe Patriot Act isn't a step in the right direction, it's a step in the WRONG direction.

You also have to know (well, SHOULD know) that there's ALWAYS going to be a group saying bad things about the current president. Don't act like it only happens to the Republicans; it happens to the Democrats too. It's not new for actions of a President being a controversy for some group. So, I say shut up, sit down, and broaden your horizons.... Thinking only Bush gets pestered...

Oh, and for statistic standards, Catholisism is more popular than Chrisianity (about 1 in every 5 people, greater than the aproximate population of China!)..... Just wanted to say that...

As a Roman Catholic, I see Christianity and Catholisism as basically the same thing.... They suck. I'm very anti-religious, but only to Catholisism. That, and I think the world would be ebtter off if people weren't so die-hard about religion.

Anyway, keep religion out of schools, unless it's a religious private school. Still, facts and theories should be taught instead of some crazy things. I personally don't believe that all life was made by an all-powerful being, yet I find it hard to believe that the universe came it exist out of nothing..... Or was I just not paying attention and made that l;ast part up?..... Hm... I'll have to sheck on that....

Anyway, I hate my religion, and religion should stay out of schools.

Now, as to weither or not this belongs on the Politics board, it does.

Recall? No. As someone posted earlier, the Defect rate is 5%. A lot? Well, technically speaking, yes. Enough for a total recall? Nowhere close.

Now, people, we all shoudl stand on even grounds here. Despite my hate for most things that are Sony, we all do have a crisis: people wrongfully banning video games. We just can't say "Yeah, they should ban video games because Microsoft has them."

......... Maybe there is no peace in video games.... But, hey, don't come crying to me about the PS3 defect rate, or Revolution's defect rate. (To be honest, I mainly hate Sony........ Though some games are of par-quality.... And most of those are multi-platform, so ha!)

At 12/10/05 11:23 AM, Evil_Alex37 wrote:

Clearly, you did'n realize Halo 2 sucked.

Actually, I'd like to state that halo 2 didn't suck. The ending was very anti-climactic, but, hey, at least we know there's a sequal.

Now, for you Sony lovers, I'd like to see a GOOD FPS come out on the PS2/3 ONLY that includes good action, no fall damage, great vehicles, and a great plotline complimented by an actual history, it's own language, and a plot/stroy that's GOOD. Then, we'll talk.

Now, Microsoft doesn't brainwash.... They don't need to. And they certainly did a pretty damn well job to become the #2 system, while all Sony had to do was get out early, release a few good games, and produce a whole army of sub-par sequals to keep it alive. On top of that, they need to make their things more durable (I find it hard to believe that I just happened to get the controlers that will break if they fall a couple feet and hit carpet), and, well, produce a hard drive that's worth having. Also, they could make a controler that fits more into your hands (like the Xbox Type S controler). Hear that? MICROSOFT HAS THINGS OF BETTER QUALITY, MORE DURABILITY, MORE COmFORTABLE, and, overall, JUST BETTER GAMES.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

At 12/7/05 11:55 PM, ScaryDeadGirl wrote:

1) Apparently your two friends count for an entire population.

Actually, their friends of my brothers. Plus, 2 people out of "all" mean that the guy, who's saying that all the 360's are defective, proves him wrong.

2) Also kids play video games way too much, but systems are supposed to be built to handle stress of that nature.

While you're "playing too much" statement is true, it's jsut the times. Not every 8 year old is in a neighborhood full of other kids.

3) If he can prove they knew of a defect and sent out the systems anyway he does in fact have a case. Companies put out defective products all the time because it's cheaper. When the cost of law suits outweighs the profit, or if it's predicted to cause really bad PR, they recall the product.

Defects happen a lot with new technology. It's early on. Like someone else said, it happened with Xbox's and PS2's. It's normal now-a-days. The things inside are more sensitive, which means that a NES should have a longer, natural lifespan than, say, a SNES (just an example). Saying that they did in on purpose, well, it depends. If they knew that they were DEFINATELY defective, then the guy's got a point. However, there's always the RISK of them being defective.

...... Ok. I understand the guy's thing with masturbation, but you cant illegalize it. It's like saying "You can't sing in the shower under penalty of law." I don't mean its stupid (well, it really is, but that's not the point), but you just can't keep track of it.

Plus, think of the conciquences. If people actually followed the law, there would probibly be more rapists out there.... and more people in prison (if they were dumb enough to get caught).

Man 1: What're you in here for?
Man 2: Murder. What're you in for?
Man 1: Masturbation.
*Man 2 punches Man 1*
Man 1: You're sick, man! THat's just plain wrong!

Get the point?

At 12/8/05 08:08 PM, InsaneStewy wrote: the world is polluted with humans.

I think if we eliminated this unique species called humans then we'd save the world.

It's either you're plain insane, or just the opposite of a hippie...... or maybe both.

I know that's its likely that there are problems, but its relatively new technology.... The guy shouldn't sue. He should just send it back.

....... Note: I'm taking your comment seriously

Bad for your eyes: No. Just a tool to get your child's head out of the way from the TV screen
Bad for your Brain: Far from it. Puzzle games, strategy games, lawyer games, medical games. Sure, some are senseless action, but others make you think.

It overheated..... The 360 overheated, so the man files a lawsuit. Claims that all of them are defective, wants total recall, and millions of dollars.

First off, of cource there'll be issues with some. Call Tech support, send the 360 back to get fixed, and in a week you'll have it back. Was that so hard? Apparently for that man, it was.

Ok, I'd like to get some facts straight. My brother says that a friend of his played the new Call of Duty for HOURS, and it didn't freeze, skip, or show any other problems.

If ANY system of you're overheats, here's the first things you should do:
1) Take it off of carpet
2) Make sure nothing is close to the venilation holes

Both those cause overheating (I learned with my N64 about the carpet)

So, man sues Microsoft.... but why make a big deal out of it?

I did a research project last year for English 1. Firstly, I'd like to say that there are some that don't know the difference between real life and fantasy. With those very few exceptions, I say no.

My research, however, using actual research, came up with mixed results. Some said yes, some said no, and one said that it depends on gender (Males are calm after violent video games, but angry after non-violent ones, and females were opposite).

..... The government is overreacting about the whole thing.

Thanks, Desert-Drifter. And, for the record, I'm a guy.

At 10/10/05 10:39 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:

First off, that article was published on-line 2003. Second of al it is published on a website that belongs to a US College, which has extensive post-grad programs in bio and social sciences. Its irrelevant if some of the links have died in the last 3 years. I think its just yoru way of side-stepping an ddiscrediting one paper I linked to, so I will give you another one.Two other studies drew even more remarkable conclusions. The researchers looked at the behavior of college students who had a history of playing video games depicting violent aggression. There was clear evidence that their behavior was influenced yielding greater aggression. Coincidentally, these same students also had the lowest grades. The second study found that students who played an aggressive video game and were then pitted against one another in a simulated contest displayed more aggressive behavior toward one another than a similar group that played a more benign game.

Video games cause increase in aggressive behaviour for children and young adults.

1) Ok... So, do you get all worked up when playing another team in a sport? Of cource... Or, at least, you usually do.
2) People get aggressive when WATCHING sports, like, say, American Football. Peole get really into it.
3) Does exciting music get the heart pumping? Yes. That's what makes up an action sequence in a movie or TV show: the music and the action.
4) College means nothing. 3 Colleges mean nothing. Actual, indisputeable proof in EVERYONE would be nice (with exceptions, of cource).
4) You also have to consider that some people are naturally agressive.
5) I play violent games, I am naturally agressive (though I control it), and I do fine. The only thing I have trouble in is Spanish (stupid Autism).
6) I never said it didn't affect adults.
7) I am outraged that you don't take a look around your own world that you know. TV shows and movies have violence, the news has violence (well.... In America, yeah, I'm not sure about other countries), and, the most important thing of all..... THERE'S VIOLENCE GOING ON RIGHT NOW IN IRAQ. Point: You can't blame it all on video games.
8) One Study: Males actually were more calm after watching clips from a violent game and were more aggressive after watching clips from non-violent games. The opposite happened for females.
9) Maybe you should, you know, be a parent and explain things to your kids, because, like, that's what a good parent does.
10) "The problem is that playing video games in a lab is very different from playing them in your own home." I'd like to state that that's one of my arguements against the experiments. The "subjects" are in an uncomfertable enviornment. Also, is some studies, the subjects are only shown what's in the video games (like I've stated above), and they don't play them. Either way, they're being watched, recorded, and under, probibly, bright lights.
11) Look, I've never said "Give GTA to the little people." In fact, I hate the GTA games.... Unless you go on a random killing spree, because that's the ONLY time that sheats make a video game fun. I'm just saying that it's fun. Will yuo take away the child's game of "Cops and Robbers" because the kids may imitate hand movements of a gun? Or take away their toy guns because it may persuade them that guns are good? Get rid of Halloween because it's the "Devil's Holiday?"
People, their children things.... not the video games, those vary. Cops and Robbers, along with the toy guns, are accepted (well, maybe not as much after Columbine....) as an everyday part of society. Halloween is just fun for the kids.
12) I'm not recommending the "Well, people are already dping so," arguement. I'm standing up for whats right.
13) Just because you don't do certain things doesn't mean others haven't. The whole world doesn't follow your ways.
14) I don't feel bad ass at all.... Unless I'm playing Halo 2 with my Juggernaught combo, armed with a rocket launcher and Energy Sword. THAT'S when you feel bad ass... Until you die. Still, it was fun doing those melees to the back...
15) ....... Politicians don't know everything. The least they could do is TRY to stay up-to-date. I mean, you shouldn't baseall if your opinions because of your experience in life. I'm going by things that have proved themselves (as in, a) there's always exceptions, b) you should actually SPEAK to your children, c) this is wrong (the law), d) you don't know anything you British b***ard.

Ok, kids, what have we learned today? Well, we've learned that the British no nothing about anything, and only insult their sister country (unless its about Bush.... That's when it's ok). We've also learned that parents these days try top shelter their children, which, as already stated, will cause the children to, most likely, grow up ignorant. Hey, I was raised sheltered. once I got to public school, I saw more things, started acting differently, and I learned that life isn't fair. Especially when that kid calls your house, says you're suisidal, and blames it on a good friend of his.

I've also leanred that playing the Sympathy card can get you what you want sometimes (Unrelated, but I'm pissed about that sort of thing, because it happened today).

Peole, research isn't always right. There's been a hodge podge of conclusions of weither or not video games actually cause violence. I shouldn't be going around saying "edivence shows that..." in a biased opinion, and neither should Justice, because Sarcasm has no justice. It only makes you sound like an ass and make everyone hate you.

There were no good ol' days where there wasn't any violence. It was open to us, but we never payed attention to it.

Look, people. I do admit that I'm not the best debater..... But if you wuote 3 or 4 words from the first amendment, followed by "bla bla bla," and state that as evidence...... You're a f**king moron.

I do admit that video games aren't for everyone, because some can't tell the difference between fiction and reality. But, that's only a few people. Our "morals" get in the way of our (America's) constitution. Of, so pixelated figures have sex. Sex is part of life, as is violence. We see it on the news. So what, we become desenseitized.... just like everyone else.

I'd also like to state that if you're thinking to yourself "what happened to the good ol' days?," you're also a f**king moron. The past has either hiden everday things (50'2 saturday cartoons, maybe?) or been even "worse" than today's world (there WAS a time where violence ruled...).

I'm mostly protecting violent games here people. Sexually explicit games just falls into the "Freedom of Speech" catagory, so I might as well protect those also. Our (everyone's) world isn't perfect. We have irrational thinking (oh, I'm not going to take a plane because we might die in it, so I'll take a bus [where the odds of an accident are greater]), idiotic people ("Iraq DOES HAVE WMD's!" followed by "There MAY BE WMD's in Iraq" and then finished off with "We THOGUHT there were WMD's in Iraq."), and politicians who don't even know the rights.

People, if minors had no rights, then there would be no laws to protect us, like Child Labor Laws, assult, rape, etc. So, since, at minimum, the first amendments (as in 1-10) apply to all (and I quote "We the People"), this is in violation with the first amendment, which is freedom of speech.

At 10/9/05 02:29 PM, -mofomojo- wrote: As long as the parents can still have a say in what they think is appropriate..

..Then it's all good.

Yes and no... They CAN say what's appropriate for their children, but it won't matter in Illinois, because the children won't be ble to play the violent games anyway.

People, I'd like to state that just because a bunch of people want it, it doesn't mean that it's right to enforce a law to put things in the majority's favor.

Prohibition: For those of you who don't know what it is, it's a nation-wide ban of alchohol. It happened in the early 1900's, which, to tell you the truth, brought more bad than good out. It allowed mafias to rise to power, and the consumption of alchohol increased afterward. Much crime went on, and many people died from illegal alchohol.

It was taken away, though, but I don't remember why (probibly the "more con than pro" thing going on there...). I'd also like to state that many religious groups were nehind it, which brings me back to the point of this thread.....

Many people are "rising to the cause" to fight violent games. One group are the Girl Scouts (yes, people, Girl Scouts...... And they SHOULD know, at the LEAST, the 1st amendment) and religious groups. Another group are the parents who don't understand. Take my parents, for instance. They listen to research. That's it. If they read something that says "research has show that kids shouldn't learn how to drive until they're 18," then I'm going to have to wait a couple more years than everyone else. If they say I shouldn't work a weed wacker until I'm 14, then they're going to make me wait. Auto lawn mowers? 15. And I got a good amount of money (on average, a little more than $25 an hour, but I worked 45 minutes a week....).

The thing is, there is NO "good cause," because good and bad are referring to POV (Point of View). We call them terrorrists, they call themselves freedom fighters..... Just an example.

My point is that we need NO LAWS to say if our children can play violent video games. Most of the parents that wonder how their kids get the games are the suppliers of the games. And even if you know what you're doing, you're only hurting your child. The kid won't be ready for real life (hey, it happened to me.... So far). Don't shield your shild from life by covering their eyes. protect them by giving them knowladge.

And, people, stop complaining about violence. It's immoral becasue of some people saying what's "proper" and what isn't, when it's a freakin way of life. Some are naturally agressive (me, which would be a suprise if you know me), and video games help release the pent up anger. Counting to 10 gives me time to think about what happened, and it makes me even more angry. Punching a pillow is just plain stupid, and never worked for me. When I can gun down pixelated AI characters like I'm a vengeful god, that's great. It releases the pent up anger.

Look, I've NEVER said that people NEVER take video agmes literally. Look, despite what you may say (hey, you might) by saying "yes you did, You're lying!," then you can go to hell. There's always going to be a few people in the world that can't destinguish the difference between fiction and reality.

Ok, so I don't know what I'll do if I have kids. I don't know if I'll drop my opinion for "the sake of the children." People, everything "forbidden" is part of our everyday life, and it doesn't matter if you like it or not. Just shut up, stop whining, and STOP ENFORCING YOUR PARENTING IDEAS ON ME (i.e. JusticeofSarcasim). I have NOT told you anything to do while parenting except my suggestion: don't shield, arm them with knowladge.

At 10/3/05 11:07 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: This has nothing to do with religion. Morals and religion are not the same. just because one wants to protect the innocence of childhood doesn't mean they are a Christian fanatic.

Actually, this has EVERYTHING to do with religion, since they're probibly celebrating about the bill, though a Christian game developer is taking a page from the bible and using violence in a game..... Anywho, religion and morals have the same basic principles. No violence (despite violence in the bible), no sex (kindda hipicritical, since sex had to be performed for the people to be born..), and so on and so forth.

I am not a Christian, nor do I belong to any other organized religion. I dont believe in a God, but I do think that this is a good idea, that children shoudl not be playing violent and graphic video games. Childhood is supposed to be the time of innocence, and Im sorry but violent games are not needed as part of a helthy childhood. I dont think we need to pump our children full of violent video games.

I never SAID violence is needed for a child to be healthy. what's healthy is being diverse with your children, and showing them the outside world, not "protecting" them from it. You choose how to parent you own children, and I'll choose how to parent mine (if I have any, that is).

When I have kids, they sure as hell wont be playing GTA or other violent games in my house. I will be sending them to play at the park or teaching them to play rugby in the backyard, or teaching them how to swim.

Again, good for you. Now, stop messing with our rights.... And I'll just assume you're British due to the reference of Rugby, but, hey, I may not be right. Plus, you can't always protect your children from everything you want to. Believe me, eventually they'll start questioning things, and go off and do the things you don't want them to do (for me, just the questioning).

....... People, people, no need for insulting.... alright, I'm lieing, but the point stands: Children have rights.

Since when did "we the people" mean adults? The sale of pornography is not banned totally, you just can't sell it to someone without an ID (which means you better have an ID, or look old enough... And I HAVE passed for a college student, just to say).

Let's see... Sure, America was made by a bunch of religious people, but, hey, that's not the point. The point is that we have rights. if we had no rights, then we wouldn't be protected by ANY laws. Slaves, before set free, had no rights. Minors do. The BANNED sales of violent video games, which is against our constitution. Thet BANNED rentals of violent video games, again, against our constitution.

Now, here's the point that pwns all you people that said "Get your parents to buy it for you." You want to know? Well, here it is:
They BANNED AVALIBILITY of violent video games to minors, which is, hands down, against the constitution.
Avalability: "Capable of being gotten; obtainable" (www.dictionary.com)
What that means, oh Wise Ones Who Say Stupid Things, is that there's NO (need I put a definition for "no" while I'm at it?) legal way to obtain violent video games in Illinois.

Ok. So far, I've proved that the bill, so far, has breached the First Amendment. So far, I have proven that there's NO LEGAL WAY to obtain the violent games. And, so far, you people keep on bringing up porn.

Porn is a very special thing to people who can't get a girl. It is deemed "morally incorrect" (my own quote, just to say) so that children won't see it. Yet, it is a part of everyday life (like sex, which is also, to some, considered morally incorrect). It's like, say... Cursing. It's not "for society," yet by the age of 8, each child (should) know what curses are, what the curse words are, and, sometimes, what they mean (like me). It could have made you popular, or cool, when Pokemon came out if you named one after a curse (I have a friend who became Mr. Popular after he nicknamed one "Ass"). By Middle School, you start using the words. By high school, chances are they've blended into everyday life.

Just because a politician deems it illegal, that doesn't mean it's constitutional.

Ok. I'd like to quote a very good friend here to all of you who keep saying that Video Games aren't protected by the 1st amendment (names are bleeped):
"M-----7: anything that expresses ideas
M-----7: is speech
M----7: just because
M----7: there were no tv shows or video games in 1776
M----7: doesnt mean
M----7: they're not part of the first amendment
M----7: thats why they said "speech"
M----7: and not "saying things" or "writing things"
M----7: there were no minors in 1776
M----7: everyone was a PERSON
F----6: ............
F----6: i should quote you on that
M----7: if you wat
M----7: want*
M----7: i think that we should look at the first amendment
M----7: it doesnt limit people to categories
M----7: it is general
M-----7: this is why it is so revolutionary
M-----7: previous constitutions limit rights to the nobles or a borgoiese
M-----7: the constitution as it was written by the politicians of 1776 cannot be changed, cannot be modified, cannot be expanded, or degeneralized
F----6: ............
M----7: our first amendment is being devalued each and every day"

Also, i'm going to paraphrase his advice. Let them do this. Let them wait to save New Orleans. let them be currupt. But what a hell of a revolution it will be. Someone will look back and realize what a mistake this is. Mobs will form. Ideas will come.

At 9/30/05 11:02 PM, fli wrote:

At 9/30/05 05:45 PM, shadowfox628 wrote:

You haven't even proved that it's unconstitutional-- maybe that is why it appears that people aren't listening...

...... You're joking, right? Ok, maybe I haven't been thorough, but it still stands, they're violating rights of minors. They ban alcohol for portection reasons, pornography for "moral" reasons, and video games because of 1 game and a few short-sighted people. There has only been a hodge podge of info on the now-hot-topic issue "Do video games cause violence." I say that, generally, no, it doesn't. Does it cause an adreniline boost? temporarally, yes, which is probibly why researchers observed aggression IMMIDIATELY afterwards.

Anyway, we (minors) have rights. There is no reason, whatsoever, to ban violent games EXCEPT for the GTA:SA thing, and that's not even a good enough reason. Video game companies will be more thorough with the "cleaning" of game content. But, some games are being targeted for the dumbest of reasons. The SIms 2, for example, is being put next on the figurative chopping block because, apparently, it allows "child molesters to practice what they'll do in real life." People, its a simulation, not a replica. I haven't played The Sims 2, but, still, there's nothing like that in The Sims.

If there hasn't been an argument to prove the validity of your statment.
But there's been several arguments with examples illustrating how this isn't violating the constitution.

As several people said to deaf ear, this isn't anymore unconstitutional than prohibiting pornography and beer to kids.

Look, I don't know why pornography is banned for kids, but I don't care.

How is buying Silent Hill a Freedom of Speech? What is the message?

PLAYING the game is a figure of speech.

If your parent says you cannot play violent games, is she abridgeing your god-given right? Okay, lemme rephase that: do you have a case in the Federal and Supreme Court against your parents, if they banned you from playing Silent Hill?

(What's with you and Silent Hill?) 1) your parents have rights over you (we are in a Capitalist-government country, and dictators all over (a.k.a. parents)), 2) ther would be no Supreme Court against your parents (though nice "if" situation... seriously), and 3) they don't care. Your parents do have a say in your life, but still, the state shouldn't govern that. Also, if I haven't said, I don't believe in God (mainly that whole "suck to to an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing and angry god" part)., so take that "god-given right" s*** and stick it up your a**.

By banning avalibility, it means that NO MINORS, no matter how, should be in POSSESSION of the video games banned. Let's face it, a lot of games are being banned (I've already given a long list of games that have violence).

Don't be silly.
The laws that govern possession of games haven't even been written down. You can own whatever violent nasty you want, if dear momsey buys it.

Avalibility is, in a definition, means "capable of being gotten." So, if I live in Illinois, and the ban is already in effect (not yet in real life, but in January 2006, maybe), I can't ask my "dear momsey" to get it for me. So, if my parents can get it for me, that's illegal.

I doubt there won't even be consideration to banning child ownership of video games-- stop fussing so much about it, because there isn't an argument to use.

Please see last interuption of this quote.

What this law means is that if you want a particular violent game suitable for adult audiances, the only way possible is if an adult buys it for you.

Please see the interuption of the previous interuption of this quote.

And that's legal.

..... You get the point, and I won't say it again.

Although, it may get your mom upset if you bought GTA with the help of some 18 year old... without her consent.

Here's some more:
Any Mario Kart, any Mario (hey, you jump on people, eat them, throw objects at things, etc.), the Mario Parties, Crash Bandicoot, VooDoo Vince (never played it, but I know there's some violence in there somehwere.... like inflicting pain to pixilated characters, or setting objects on fire?), the Zelda games, etc.

You're so right.
Those games are so incredly uber-violent.

Let's put the "Adults Only" sticker on them,
and then everything is solved.

No, that gets us back to the beginning again. None of those deserve an AO rating, I was just listing games with VIOLENCE in it, so, therefore, they would be banned in Illinois. I never said they were "uber-violent," just, to state again, that they would be banned.

At 9/30/05 06:58 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: For the last time this is not a violation of anyoens first amendment rights. The video game companies can still make and sell them, therefore no violation. And well kids as consumers are not covered under the first amendment becasue they are not using free speech or freedom of expression, they are simply consuming a product, just like reading a book or playing with a toy.

You're as stubborn as a Creationist talking to a person who believes in the Evolution Theory: you keep on insisting that you're biblically (or, in the case of you, DEFINATELY) correct. Also, you don't seem to see the big picture, as well as the point. Communism has biased press (Hey, if people think America's news is biased, you should see China's), and banning of certain things (like, say, certain sites, ads, movies, current issues in the world, etc.)..... And minors have rights.

Books are protected by Freedom of Speech, and, well, toys........ That's something that I wouldn't know. Still, books ARE protected by the 1st Amendment, as well as TV shows, movies, and video games (as restated for, about, the 5th time).

THERE FORE THIS IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and, possibly, freedom of press.

Second point, the banning of the sale of violent video games to minors will not result in a communist society. In fact it cant result in communism if people say this is done by the religious side, because there is no religion in communism. It would be a dictatorship. Besides, its obsurd to think that banning of violent video games from minors willr esult in a ban on the internet.

Actually, it's one step to it.... For communism for the children..... Which will teach us the ways of communism, which, eventually, will lead to a communist envoirnment... In theory (It's like researchers say: "If we keep pollutioting at this rate over the next decade, we'll increase the temp. of the Earth by 5 degrees." ...... Yet, we won't stay at a constant rate). And dictatorship doesn't have to be based upon religion.

"As we continue down the "Hall of Stupidity," you will se JusticeofSarcasm's one good point, but poorly thought out...." If you haven't noticed, things like this never work. Minors get alchohol and cigarettes (actually, THOSE are the gateway drugs), and people during the few Prohibitions (you know, NO ALChOHOL.... AT ALL) got drunk. If this passes for long enough, there will be a bigger surge of violent video games, using the Prohibitions as a point (alchoholics increased each time).

Also, if not stopped, then this will bring a "Snowball" effect (as in it will get bigger, and Bigger, and BIgger, and BIGger, etc.) to other things (press, news, TV shows, movies, etc.), until stopped, which, in that case, all the other things SHOULD be returned to their normal state.

At 9/30/05 03:26 AM, fli wrote: There's no Constitional violation...
Because the video's aren't banned themselves.

Rather the selling, renting, and distrubtion to minors is banned.
Which is a good thing.

If a kid wants to play GTA, that should be fine.
But only if mommy bought that game for that kid.

Really,
there is no argument.

.............. THIS is the EXACT problems I have with topic board slike these: nobody SEEMS (just saying) to listen to me. The banning of AVALIBILIY, SALES, and RENTALS of violent and sexually explicit games is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because WE, the MINORS, have at LEAST the 1st amendment as a right.

By banning avalibility, it means that NO MINORS, no matter how, should be in POSSESSION of the video games banned. Let's face it, a lot of games are being banned (I've already given a long list of games that have violence).

Here's some more:
Any Mario Kart, any Mario (hey, you jump on people, eat them, throw objects at things, etc.), the Mario Parties, Crash Bandicoot, VooDoo Vince (never played it, but I know there's some violence in there somehwere.... like inflicting pain to pixilated characters, or setting objects on fire?), the Zelda games, etc.

At 9/30/05 02:33 AM, neo2351 wrote: ok frist of all this has nothing to do with the frist amendmenti have read the bill all of it i looked it up and it limmits the sale of games to minors and it should this way it is up to the parents which it should be i would not want my child to but san andreas oviosly you did not read intro this enough the bill is a good idea it just state venders can not sell mature games to minors it is no different then not selling adult movies. it says nothing about not selling them at all that would be a frist amendment thing.

1) Yes, it does have something to do with the 1st amendment. Like books have to do with the 1st amendment, and TV shows and movies have to do with the 1st amendment.
2) At LEAST put some punctuation into your posts...... it's too har dfor me to read.
3) Parents do have a say in this sort of thing, but BANNING ".... sales, rentals, and avalibility...." of these games is against it.
4) Look, I'm not fighting for the sexually explicit games.... It's more about rights and the violent ones, because nothing's better to do on a boring weekend than hook up 2 Xbox's and frag each other in Halo 2, or pwn people in Super Smash Brothers melee.
5) I don't play GTA games, because, frankly, they suck. Each game so far after GTA3 has been, essentially, an expansion pack of it, except you have to pay and additional 50 bucks.
6) Ok, I don't complain about NC-17 movies. I don't complain about AO games. Those are there to say "we're not responcible for things you didn't know," or "we're not responcible if your child does this stuff." BUT by BANNING sales, rentals, and avalibility of these games (again, not AO games, but violent and sexually explicit games) they are taking away our rights.
7) Ok, so there's something that says retailers cannot sell an M rated game to minors. Big deal, have a parent get it. The bill DOES NOT ALLOW THAT. It's like buying alchohol for minors: if you're caught, you're busted.
8) No laws prevent kids from avalibility of adult movies. 1 bill, which HAS been presented before (I do say that, but the bill was approved WITH HASTE after the GTA:SA ruling) was to ban all viloent and, I'm not sure, but maybe also sexually explicit games.

People, this shouldn't be an arguement about morals, or if you want your kids playing them. If it's that big of a deal, don't let them get their hands on it. This is about the rights of many Americans in Illinois. I'm just saying that IF, for any reason, this bill is not ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL (which it is), then this WILL spread. Not only will it be for video games, but then it'll be for TV shows, books, movies, internet sites. Then we won't be living in a FREE country, where we have RIGHTS. It'll be a few steps closer to Communism (and, hey, America hates Communists).

Now, I said "*cough* terrorists *cough*" because they ARE the religious type.... Generally Islamic, but, hey, I have nothing against the religion. Only my own, because I, basically, don't like the philosophy of it, and the fact that I'm pretty much told to bow down to an all-mighty power. I'm just trying to state that the world would be better with less religious zealots, but religion has had an important part in history (hey, people came to America in the beginning to escape religious prosecution).

People, I'm not standing up for the sexually explicit games. I'm standing up for the violent games (hey, if your pissed, take it out on pixilated characters) and freedom of speech. Yeah, sure, this SHOULD be deemed unconstitutional, but what if it isn't? Someone (I forget who, sorry) that responded to this is not afraid of illinois, but if it evolves into something bigger. It may, if not deemed unconstitutional, will most likely spread to other states, and other groups will come up as well.

No viloence in movies, TV shows, not suggestion of it in music or art. Then we can't put it in the press, and so on and so forth..... All things UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This is mostly about my rights and the rights of others. Just because we're minors DOESN'T mean we don't have rights, because we do. They're banning us part of our freedom of speech, and that's unconstitutional.

...... I'd also like to state that I have a couple law-knowing people backing me up, who KNOW it's unconstitutional. But, I don't know what the jury will say to ESRB's plea to get rid of the bill, if it passes, we can rip up the Decleration of Independence and the US Constitution, and so forth because we've screwed up what people faught hard for.

At 9/29/05 06:42 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:

The law is being made because of some material in a video game that was locked away and opened by a hacker.

Why did Rockstar leave it in then? Woudl it not have been simpler to remove it before they released the game?

Look, face it, I'm not Rockstar. I'm not a mindreader. What you're asking me is like asking a scientist to prove gravety exists through making gravety visible, or me asking a religious person to prove there's a god (I've never heard/said any of those, just examples). They left it on there, and they have to pay the price. other companies, however, are being treated unfairly (Maxis' "The Sims 2" helping bad people? Insane).

I'd also like to state that violence is violence. Therefore, politicians are saying "any game that says 'Violence' for the ESRB rating, they'll ban it." Also, I'd like to state that video games ARE protected by the 1st Amendment, along with music, movies, and TV shows.

I don't like the law because it could evolve to something much worse. That's the only problem. And from what I've read about the new law, there's a lot open to interpretation that could cause mistakes. Not to mention the fact that the law isn't needed. The police aren't going to be able to discern whether a kid playing an "M" or "AO" rated game got it legally or illegally and there will still be the retailers that don't pay attention to the law or rules.

What could it evolve into that would be much worse? I don't think ppl got all upset when porn was made for adults only and not kids. This I dont feel would fall under the slippery slope. They are not going to ban video games entirely, there would nto be enough political support for it to happen.

Let's see.... real people Vs. pixelated people.

And so what if the police wont catch everyone who rents them to minors. If the police get a report about them doing this they will catch some of the businesses who do this and fine them. Its just like selling alcohol to minors or allowing minors into a bar. They dont all get caught, but some do which discourages others from doing it.

And to the guy who thinks that Hillory shouldn't run because she advocated banning violent video games from being sold to minors. One she has nothing to do with THIS law. She is in NY not Illinois. Second of all this wont cause anyoen too loose alot of votes,s ince the people actually affected are not of voting age, and people close to that age typically do not vote in large numbers. The Governer will barely even feel this come election time.

Ok, you've got a point.

Restatement: The bill will ban rental, sales, and avalibility of violent and sexualy explicit games to minors.

What YOU'RE saying is that they're ONLY banning rentals and sales of these games to minors. What the bill REALLY does is make it illegal for minors to be in possession of the game.

Harsh, man..... Harsh.

At 9/29/05 05:24 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: For the last time, no ones free speech is violated by this law. I will break it down as simple as I can.

Game Companies - They still can produce these games. No limits are being put on what they can produce. If they want to make gory video games with realistic violence and nudity theya re more than welcome to, they just can't sell it to minors, but they can still seel it. Therefore no problems with freedom of speech/press.

Gamers - They have no claim to freedom of speech regarding video games. They are simply the consumer of the material, much like a reader of the paper or movie goer. So what if its interactive, its still not freedom of expression/speech for you because you are consuming it, not creating it. and dont give me the BS about well you get to express yourself by beating the shit of someoen or interacting with the game. You interact with all forms of media, whetehr it be processing images or thoughts, or mazking you think about something.

There is no impeedment of freedom of speech/press/expression. It is simply minors upset that they wont be able to rent GTA or MK anymore.

Again, JusticeofSarcasim, it's NOT JUST RENTALS. It's sales, rentals, AND AVALIBILITY (hence, minor's CAN"T BE IN POSSESSION OF IT). OUR (as in fellow minor's) rights (yes, we have rights too) are in jepordy. What they're saying isn't "Because this is an R-Rated movie, you need an adult to go in with you." It's more like "Since this movie is rated PG for violence, you can't see this movie. At all."

I'd also like to state that I don't play MK or GTA, mainly because a) I'm not a huge fan of fighting games, and b) GTA just sucks unless you're going on a senseless rampage for fun.

At 9/29/05 04:36 PM, ScaryDeadGirl wrote: Most of those games are already marked mature and not for kids anyway. It's not new to get parental concent before kids can obtain certain things. Besides parents will still buy their kids games too mature for them because they don't pay attention or because they feel their child can handle it.

Good point: Parents don't pay attention, which brings me to another point. Since most parents don't pay attention, they're outraged when they find out what's in the game..... And how is Halo (2) not for kids? It has violence, and blood.... All things found in real life.