Displaying 41–60 of 83
I will support you from CHina weeeeeeeGo Adam say F- the PO PO i am stepping here on the steps
I'm glad DirecTV took away G4 right when I wanted to find out about this. end sarcasm. Thanks for discussing this on your Soapbox!
They are trying to argue violence in video games. From a man who made all his money killing people on the big screen. I really think he is trying to kill California by destroying the economy. First video games, then porn, then actual movies. And why is he trying to do the job that parents are suppose to be doing. There are so many arguments that make this case worthless they should be paying the judges to hear this B.S. End result is inform the parents better and we wont have half of these problems.
I have suggestion for you all to learn about rights. Visit this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =hWiBt-pqp0E and George Carlin will tell you all about the fairness of this issue.
aaaaaaand this is why everyone hates the U.S.
I have tons of pictures of me smiling and waving next to "Free Speech Zone" signs. Not only government buildings, but even federally owned parks and playgrounds have these things. They even had one at the top of this mountain in my state. I mean, who's going to protest a mountain?
They're just looking at games from the outside. When you look at it that way it's easy to exclude it from being a media for the people to use. IF they pass this law it will show the down fall of this nation. The only thing keeping this nation a float is our entertainment industry. If you throw that in the crapper then the country won't have ANY REVENUE. This WILL be the nail in the coffin for our economy.
If I am understanding you correctly, Adam, the important issue is whether or not there is a significant difference between video games, and let's say movies, to justify a difference in treatment under law regarding distribution. I think there are a number of significant differences. The obvious distinction is that the consumer of a video game containing violence may actively participate in fictional violent behaviour, rather than just observe it occuring. Whether or not this difference (or others, however I think this is the most important) warrants differing treatment in regards to the protection of minors, I really do not know.I suppose a person could draw some similarities to real world violence, though that is pretty sketchy (I hate it when I make puns- depicted violence, draw, sketch, see wur i'm goin wit dis?!). The difference between comitting an act of violence, and having seen an act of violence (the latter having a wide number of possible variations) is certainly treated differently. But the real life comparisons thing goes both ways. The idea of comitting fictional violence being considered a more serious crime than sneaking into an R rated movie seems sort of ridiculous when you consider the existence of table top games like Dungeons and Dragons (though the difference here is the very visual nature of video games, whereas D&D has a higher imagination requirement to envision the evisceration of hapless orcs).Sooo.... Irono.The slippery slope shenanigans mentioned in this video are pretty pathetic, IMO. I think the only reason the judge brought it up was to allude to the importance of the proponents establishing an argument that showed, without question, some very powerful differences in the consumption of video games vs other forms of entertainment containing violence. So, please please please, in the future Mr Sessler, don't use such things. There are less confusing, ways to describe how proponents of an idea need to support their argument. If a person wants a strong argument against this case, play reactive, and just attack any kind of barrier that might be supposed to separate video game violence and other forms of fictional violence.On the couple of people encouraging Mr Sessler to break the law by trying to exercise free speech on the steps of the Supreme Court building.... Dun do that. Incitement is bad m'kay? Only place in the US where a person TRULY has the right to free speech, anything at all, is on the floor of the Senate (if I remember correctly. I've been wrong before). Though ironic, such laws preventing the use of iconic landmarks as marketing tools for ideas is completely necessary to help keep the Supreme Court neutral. That's the idea, anyway.Also, kittens are adorable.
Kagan, and Sotomayor are the new Justices that Obama appointed to the court. I am glad to see that, although i know they are left wing, at least on free speech they take after Ginsburg.Breyer the biggest statist of the left wing justices is purely horrible. He does not care about what the constitution says and only cares about giving more and more power to the government.
Adam, I sure hope you didn't move one step where you were when those cops asked you to move. I would have gave them a weird look and keep talking to the camera. k?Anyway, great job!
I'm really glad that you're bringing this to us. And as a side note, Sam Alito is every lawyer's worst nightmare. He will interrupt you're practiced and articulated 30 minute speech, and just force you to think quick and transition back into your argument. He's a total dick and repin' New Jersey baby *fist pumps*
Breyer, Alito and Roberts are terrible on this. Their questions seemed to indicate they like the law.Scalia, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor appear to be in the overturn the law camp.That leaves Kennedy and Thomas. Kennedy is the moderate so I am guessing he will bow to the power of government and up hold the law as constitutional. Thomas usually sticks with what the constitution says (rather then make it up like others on the court tend to do) so I am guessing he will vote to overturn the law as unconstitutional.
Adam great soapbox! Hopefully this discussion will die once and for all. Maybe I shouldn't say die because people might think games are making me into a killer.
In front of that court speaking your own mind adam....i envy you sir.
Remember, this is the same state that also wants to make a gateway drug legal so they can climb out of debt. Just sayin.
Would you get shot for not wearing a suit near that building?
This is just the first step, baby step, towards things becoming like some movies, like Demolition Man, where eventually violence is banned and unheard of. The computer spouts out "Murder, Death, Kill" repeatedly when Wesley Snipe's character kills someone, and the cops at the station witnessing it from a camera, including Sandra Bullock's character, are all confused as to what just happened.Yes, far-fetched, but hey, you never know.
Thanks Sess and G4 for keeping us posted on this upcoming ruling. While it is always important to keep too obsene materials from children it should not come at the expense of the art/speech of games and our right to enjoy them.
Posted: March 29, 2012
23,438 Views | 03:24
Posted: March 19, 2012
15,690 Views | 04:13
Posted: March 13, 2012
44,726 Views | 05:34
Posted: March 6, 2012
19,360 Views | 05:38
Posted: February 28, 2012
21,600 Views | 05:23
© 2012 G4 Media, LLC. All rights reserved.