If violent games were ever banned

...how affected would you be by it?

I don't see this ever really happening. There will always be mature games, even if some kind of underground indie market emerges, but I've been thinking about this lately and in some ways I think it wouldn't immediately ruin games.

I'm not against violence in games. I laugh at over-the-top stuff like the bloody mess perk in Fallout 3. I like the idea of slicing enemies up in MGR:Revengeance. I like fighting games, Condemned 2 and any good 3rd person melee system. I love starting chain reactions of car explosions in GTAIV. I will never be someone with any credibility to argue against game violence because, once in Vice City, I snuck into the strip club with a sniper rifle and blew the heads off all the dancers. I like crazy exaggerated violence just fine. I like it in movies like Evil Dead 2, Dead Alive and Riki-Oh.

This kind of thing can be highly entertaining, like the Three Stooges, but what I get tired of in games is the mundane, constant violence we get out of most shooters. If there's one thing I hate in any game it's when your only interaction with the world is shooting things. The only games I really like that come close to that description is Half-Life 1 & 2 because they were innovators in making shooters with a deeper sense of interacting with the world. There have been shooters since that I can get into. I'm pretty into the last 2 Far-Cry games, but overall, I'm not a huge fan of the genre. As important as I will admit Doom is, I am still more of a fan of Ultima Underworld.

Most of the games I really like have plenty of violence in them, but allow you to decide how much you want to engage in. I prefer stealth franchises like MGS and Thief or at least games that give you a choice of stealth like Deus Ex. That's not to say that stealth always equals non-violence. I'm a big fan of Tenchu and that's all about sneaking up on and straight-up murdering people without detection. I also really love games like Fallout and Arcanum that allow me to talk my way out of a lot of situations.

Now, banning violence would probably ruin a lot of those games because it would remove the choice, but I also think restricting game developers from immediately making the main transaction with the gameworld violent could lead to some interesting new mechanics. Look at Germany where board games and sims have taken off because of lack of access to violent games. While I don't wish to see the entire industry turn into sims. I think we need to start diversifying the kinds of games we're playing a little more. There are still a few decent sim games on the market and we get an occasional great adventure game, but I remember when computer games really started to take over from arcade games and we suddenly had tons of platformers, adventure games, sims, strategy games and rpgs. While all of those genres are still around, today it's pretty rare to get a game where combat of some kind isn't the most prominent mechanic in the game.

I'm not going to pretend that any kind of violence ban would ever be done right anyway. Back when this actually happened to the comic industry and the strict comics code was enforced it was a huge mess. I love pre-code horror, sci-fi and crime comics and I think it sucks that they were killed off the way they were, but there's this really interesting period just after the code and before the market became dominated by cowboys and then superheroes when publishers like EC (who were doing Tales from the Crypt before) started publishing comics about reporters and doctors. They even had one about psychoanalysis.

In the end, what I'd like to see the most is games that push into these other areas on their own without the government involvement. I'm not discounting that there are lots of indie games that don't care at all about what is popular, but in the case of the big studios, as long as repetitive shooters sell really well, They are just going to keep making them. I loved the first 2 Mass Effects, but would people have played them without the shooting sections? Maybe the Walking Dead proves that some people might, even though that game has its far share of violence and gore and probably wouldn't make it past censors either. It makes me wonder how a huge AAA game based on something like the experimental indie game Facade would do. I guess we can always look to the indies and the biggest, most interesting Kickstarter projects for this kind of diversity, but it would be nice if the top tier of the market was more supportive of more unique types of games.

91 Comments
92 Comments
  • 92 results
  • 1
  • 2
Edited by oraknabo

...how affected would you be by it?

I don't see this ever really happening. There will always be mature games, even if some kind of underground indie market emerges, but I've been thinking about this lately and in some ways I think it wouldn't immediately ruin games.

I'm not against violence in games. I laugh at over-the-top stuff like the bloody mess perk in Fallout 3. I like the idea of slicing enemies up in MGR:Revengeance. I like fighting games, Condemned 2 and any good 3rd person melee system. I love starting chain reactions of car explosions in GTAIV. I will never be someone with any credibility to argue against game violence because, once in Vice City, I snuck into the strip club with a sniper rifle and blew the heads off all the dancers. I like crazy exaggerated violence just fine. I like it in movies like Evil Dead 2, Dead Alive and Riki-Oh.

This kind of thing can be highly entertaining, like the Three Stooges, but what I get tired of in games is the mundane, constant violence we get out of most shooters. If there's one thing I hate in any game it's when your only interaction with the world is shooting things. The only games I really like that come close to that description is Half-Life 1 & 2 because they were innovators in making shooters with a deeper sense of interacting with the world. There have been shooters since that I can get into. I'm pretty into the last 2 Far-Cry games, but overall, I'm not a huge fan of the genre. As important as I will admit Doom is, I am still more of a fan of Ultima Underworld.

Most of the games I really like have plenty of violence in them, but allow you to decide how much you want to engage in. I prefer stealth franchises like MGS and Thief or at least games that give you a choice of stealth like Deus Ex. That's not to say that stealth always equals non-violence. I'm a big fan of Tenchu and that's all about sneaking up on and straight-up murdering people without detection. I also really love games like Fallout and Arcanum that allow me to talk my way out of a lot of situations.

Now, banning violence would probably ruin a lot of those games because it would remove the choice, but I also think restricting game developers from immediately making the main transaction with the gameworld violent could lead to some interesting new mechanics. Look at Germany where board games and sims have taken off because of lack of access to violent games. While I don't wish to see the entire industry turn into sims. I think we need to start diversifying the kinds of games we're playing a little more. There are still a few decent sim games on the market and we get an occasional great adventure game, but I remember when computer games really started to take over from arcade games and we suddenly had tons of platformers, adventure games, sims, strategy games and rpgs. While all of those genres are still around, today it's pretty rare to get a game where combat of some kind isn't the most prominent mechanic in the game.

I'm not going to pretend that any kind of violence ban would ever be done right anyway. Back when this actually happened to the comic industry and the strict comics code was enforced it was a huge mess. I love pre-code horror, sci-fi and crime comics and I think it sucks that they were killed off the way they were, but there's this really interesting period just after the code and before the market became dominated by cowboys and then superheroes when publishers like EC (who were doing Tales from the Crypt before) started publishing comics about reporters and doctors. They even had one about psychoanalysis.

In the end, what I'd like to see the most is games that push into these other areas on their own without the government involvement. I'm not discounting that there are lots of indie games that don't care at all about what is popular, but in the case of the big studios, as long as repetitive shooters sell really well, They are just going to keep making them. I loved the first 2 Mass Effects, but would people have played them without the shooting sections? Maybe the Walking Dead proves that some people might, even though that game has its far share of violence and gore and probably wouldn't make it past censors either. It makes me wonder how a huge AAA game based on something like the experimental indie game Facade would do. I guess we can always look to the indies and the biggest, most interesting Kickstarter projects for this kind of diversity, but it would be nice if the top tier of the market was more supportive of more unique types of games.

Posted by JasonR86

Not very. I play a lot of games that aren't that violent.

Posted by Sumbog

Id kill someone.

Its tough to think about what kind of effect this would have on me because I couldn't really imagine a scenario in which this happens, violence in media is just something ingrained in our culture. I guess it would really depend on how they defined video games, for example I play a lot of RTS', are those considered violent?

I will say, please don't touch my video games, I like them how they are.

Posted by Imsorrymsjackson

If they were banned then I wouldn't have a choice, so I would just get on with playing other stuff.

Posted by mikey87144

Then the world of Equilibrium would be real. If games go so does everything else.

Posted by AmatureIdiot

I'm guessing here in the UK I'll have to buy a good PC and download a lot more weird Russian games, if the supply from america is cut off.

Posted by xaLieNxGrEyx

Demand the banning of Rap and Pop Music

Posted by mlarrabee

Playing fewer violent games wouldn't bother me. Having anyone force developers to produce fewer or restrict my access to them as a mentally stable adult would bother me greatly.

Posted by believer258

I'm against censorship of any form so I would...

...more than likely make better grades in school.

Posted by spankingaddict

Not at all , I wouldn't care . I would almost prefer that .

Edited by feliciano182

I lived censorship, I was in Venezuela around the time Hugo Chavez banned violent videogames.

Everyone got mad of course, but if videogames aren't taken seriously in a first world country, then you can begin to imagine how it would be elsewhere.

Posted by Hizang

It would suck.

I mean sure I like non violent games as much as the next person, I mean Banjo-Kazooie is the best game ever made! But no Call of Duty, no Borderlands, no Uncharted, no Metal Gear Solid, no Mass Effect or no GTA.

So I am happy I live in a world where violent video games exist.

Posted by posh

talking about violent videogames being "banned" is speaking pretty broadly. the more realistic eventuality is that violence in video games will be toned down, and if that prompts game designers to begin thinking of better ways to excite the player than "I JUST CUT THAT GUY'S ARMPIT OFF" then that's absolutely fine by me. and please, less of this "they're taking away our freedom" bullshit, as if violence in videogames is crucial

Posted by Stonyman65

They can't ban them. It's a violation of the First Amendment.

Edited by SirOptimusPrime

I mean it would suck, but the economics and politics of it would be totally fucked if video games continually expand as an industry. It would start a pretty bad precedent for media in general, y'know? I'd love to see how modern super ultra-Conservatives would react to this - violence "brainwashing their youth" now being heavily restricted by the government.

If it did happen, in the end I'd just dig deeper into sims.

Online
Posted by bybeach

Try to define and the next thing I know I am establishing public limits. Personally I think the focus on Video games is a bullshit switch for the fact an AR-15 (Bushmaster for the unwary) is meant for killing humans. Why I step into this pile, because violence using even more sophisticated weapons for dubious or negative reasons is rampant in some video games. By my opinion. So I do not know what to say, except trying to castrate various Medias so as an excuse to keep the real McCoy is transparent for what it is.

But I do self- monitor. That's why for one example no GTA4. I have not bought or I have stopped playing a game that stepped out of my sense of self. I played through Max Payne 3, and even argued for it, if one way, to a GB staff member. But I am really not so sure....

It does interest me that someone else would argue complete and utter censorship for me so as they can keep their human intended killing guns (Assault weapons nothing less..not home defence). And frankly, without some sort of situational combat, I would and could find a few games to interest me. And that would be it. There is in the US amendments, and freedom of speech trumps...but even still, perhaps especially, the conservative right will become all Nanny state when threatened. Amusing when one thinks of it, and over what issues.

I also played Deus Ex with the Trank gun, first and all other times. But when I came up against who I determined was my real enemy ('Know who your enemies are'-NMH) I fought with Human killing weapons. That stayed within sense of self.

Posted by Kaiserreich

You'll take these games from my cold dead hands!

Posted by posh

@Stonyman65 said:

They can't ban them. It's a violation of the First Amendment.

the way america idolises its constitution is hilarious to me. the fact that it's still important and legal is also hilarious

Posted by shivermetimbers

It'll be like that scene in Fahrenheit 451 where the woman dies with her burning books. Instead this time, it would be video games.

Posted by Ravenlight

Man, I dunno. I'd probably ruin my life running a video games black market or something.

Edited by TooWalrus

@posh said:

@Stonyman65 said:

They can't ban them. It's a violation of the First Amendment.

the way america idolises its constitution is hilarious to me. the fact that it's still important and legal is also hilarious

Get back to your silly Monarchy, kid. These guns are all that's keeping the King of England out of our god damn face.

Posted by Dagbiker
@posh

@Stonyman65 said:

They can't ban them. It's a violation of the First Amendment.

the way america idolises its constitution is hilarious to me. the fact that it's still important and legal is also hilarious

Yes. I also find peoples ability to follow laws layed down by their forbringer “hilarious“
Posted by Patman99

I am against it but I would say that the games I enjoy most are actually the non-violent ones. Furthermore, I believe that the video game industry needs to mature big time. I think it is fine to have violence just to have violence, like many action movies out today. However, most violent video games have no real purpose beyond the violence they create. The ones that do (e.g. Spec Ops) actually have a really awesome message. I would even say that the GTA series is not just blatantly violent. GTA IV made a few points for us to think about. While not every video game needs to have some sort of heavy handed message, they also do not need violence just because of a lack of creativity. I think in general story telling needs to evolve in this medium and you will see way less blatantly violent video games and more games where the violence fits the theme and context.

Posted by Stonyman65

@posh said:

@Stonyman65 said:

They can't ban them. It's a violation of the First Amendment.

the way america idolises its constitution is hilarious to me. the fact that it's still important and legal is also hilarious

It's the basis of all laws in this country. The American Constitution is to US law what English Law is to the UK.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that video games are protected under the First Amendment, - the same way movies, art, and music is. http://techland.time.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-video-games-qualify-for-first-amendment-protection/

By law, the US Government can't ban, or even censor video games at all. If they tried to, the Supreme Court would overrule it.

The most anyone can do is restrict them to legal adults (anyone 18 or older). But even then, that is already being done by most stores in most states here. That type of thing will only work as long as parents abide by those laws. Realistically, there is no way to enforce it.

Posted by oldenglishC

@posh said:

@Stonyman65 said:

They can't ban them. It's a violation of the First Amendment.

the way america idolises its constitution is hilarious to me. the fact that it's still important and legal is also hilarious

Online
Posted by Vinny_Says

Is this the same world where violent movies and music and television and books are also banned? It's either a lame world or a hypocritical world we live in then.

And I'd still be able to play Skate and Dirt and Portal and Forza and stuff so I'd probably be fine. It's living with the rest of the sensored media that would blow.

Posted by posh

@TooWalrus said:

Get back to your silly Monarchy, kid. These guns are all that's keeping the King of England out of our god damn face.

well, that's just a dumb thing to say. and you think i dont think the monarchy is archaic and stupid too?

@Dagbiker said:

Yes. I also find peoples ability to follow laws layed down by their forbringer “hilarious“

the constitution was written by slave owners, and all around pieces of shit. pretty naive to think laws made up in the 1700s should still be relevant at all

@Stonyman65 said:

It's the basis of all laws in this country. The American Constitution is to US law what English Law is to the UK.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that video games are protected under the First Amendment, - the same way movies, art, and music is. http://techland.time.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-video-games-qualify-for-first-amendment-protection/

By law, the US Government can't ban, or even censor video games at all. If they tried to, the Supreme Court would overrule it.

The most anyone can do is restrict them to legal adults (anyone 18 or older). But even then, that is already being done by most stores in most states here. That type of thing will only work as long as parents abide by those laws. Realistically, there is no way to enforce it.

yeah, and i'm saying that's dumb. english law is relatively dynamic, but still dumb. i'm no patriot, i hate my country and the way it operates. the constitution has rendered US law static for over 200 years, seems like a bad idea to me

Posted by Stonyman65

@posh said:

@TooWalrus said:

Get back to your silly Monarchy, kid. These guns are all that's keeping the King of England out of our god damn face.

well, that's just a dumb thing to say. and you think i dont think the monarchy is archaic and stupid too?

@Dagbiker said:

Yes. I also find peoples ability to follow laws layed down by their forbringer “hilarious“

the constitution was written by slave owners, and all around pieces of shit. pretty naive to think laws made up in the 1700s should still be relevant at all

@Stonyman65 said:

It's the basis of all laws in this country. The American Constitution is to US law what English Law is to the UK.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that video games are protected under the First Amendment, - the same way movies, art, and music is. http://techland.time.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-video-games-qualify-for-first-amendment-protection/

By law, the US Government can't ban, or even censor video games at all. If they tried to, the Supreme Court would overrule it.

The most anyone can do is restrict them to legal adults (anyone 18 or older). But even then, that is already being done by most stores in most states here. That type of thing will only work as long as parents abide by those laws. Realistically, there is no way to enforce it.

yeah, and i'm saying that's dumb. english law is relatively dynamic, but still dumb. i'm no patriot, i hate my country and the way it operates. the constitution has rendered US law static for over 200 years, seems like a bad idea to me

But it still works, more or less.

At least we still have free speech.

Posted by Sanity

I would keep playing the older ones, fuck the government.

Posted by Ouren

@Ravenlight: WHAT ARE YA BUYIN?

Posted by S0mewh4tD4m4ged

I mostly play 1st/3rd person shooters & action/adventure games. So I would be hurting...

Posted by Fattony12000
Posted by oraknabo

@Fattony12000: Sorry, I'm being US-centric here, but the "they" in my title refers to the US Government.

Posted by Dagbiker
@posh

@TooWalrus said:

Get back to your silly Monarchy, kid. These guns are all that's keeping the King of England out of our god damn face.

well, that's just a dumb thing to say. and you think i dont think the monarchy is archaic and stupid too?

@Dagbiker said:

Yes. I also find peoples ability to follow laws layed down by their forbringer “hilarious“

the constitution was written by slave owners, and all around pieces of shit. pretty naive to think laws made up in the 1700s should still be relevant at all

@Stonyman65 said:

It's the basis of all laws in this country. The American Constitution is to US law what English Law is to the UK.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that video games are protected under the First Amendment, - the same way movies, art, and music is. http://techland.time.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-video-games-qualify-for-first-amendment-protection/

By law, the US Government can't ban, or even censor video games at all. If they tried to, the Supreme Court would overrule it.

The most anyone can do is restrict them to legal adults (anyone 18 or older). But even then, that is already being done by most stores in most states here. That type of thing will only work as long as parents abide by those laws. Realistically, there is no way to enforce it.

yeah, and i'm saying that's dumb. english law is relatively dynamic, but still dumb. i'm no patriot, i hate my country and the way it operates. the constitution has rendered US law static for over 200 years, seems like a bad idea to me

Thou shalt not kill.
This one is atribitueted to God. weather you beleve in him or not. it is just as relevent. more then 2000 years later.
Posted by Fattony12000

@oraknabo: No need to be sorry. I'm just pointing out something something must kill all peoplpelelpd[pkl[pjopdhi[joihy4ipyn5v -6

Posted by ChinaDontCare

Your video games aint going anywhere, your guns aint going any where, it all has to do with drugs and the pharmaceutical industry.

Posted by TheVeteran13

I'd shank a mofo like blap,blap,blap.

Online
Posted by posh

@Dagbiker said:

Thou shalt not kill. This one is atribitueted to God. weather you beleve in him or not. it is just as relevent. more then 2000 years later.

nice. that's one example. pretty easy to say "don't kill" right off the bat. "everyone can have guns forever" is pretty different though.

Posted by Dagbiker
@posh

@Dagbiker said:

Thou shalt not kill. This one is atribitueted to God. weather you beleve in him or not. it is just as relevent. more then 2000 years later.

nice. that's one example. pretty easy to say "don't kill" right off the bat. "everyone can have guns forever" is pretty different though.

I was mearly pointing out that dismissing a law based on who wrote it, and how old it is is dumb.
Posted by TooWalrus

@Dagbiker said:

Thou shalt not kill. This one is atribitueted to God. weather you beleve in him or not. it is just as relevent. more then 2000 years later.

You know, I like the constitution as much as the next guy, but I don't think considering concepts like murder, lying, theft etc are wrong because God said so is good for society.

Posted by Irishdoom

It would never happen. The only thing that COULD happen in this area is more safeguards in terms of making sure only adults can get them. Too many parents aren't informed enough about video game violence.

Posted by matti00

@Stonyman65 said:

@posh said:

@TooWalrus said:

Get back to your silly Monarchy, kid. These guns are all that's keeping the King of England out of our god damn face.

well, that's just a dumb thing to say. and you think i dont think the monarchy is archaic and stupid too?

@Dagbiker said:

Yes. I also find peoples ability to follow laws layed down by their forbringer “hilarious“

the constitution was written by slave owners, and all around pieces of shit. pretty naive to think laws made up in the 1700s should still be relevant at all

@Stonyman65 said:

It's the basis of all laws in this country. The American Constitution is to US law what English Law is to the UK.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that video games are protected under the First Amendment, - the same way movies, art, and music is. http://techland.time.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-video-games-qualify-for-first-amendment-protection/

By law, the US Government can't ban, or even censor video games at all. If they tried to, the Supreme Court would overrule it.

The most anyone can do is restrict them to legal adults (anyone 18 or older). But even then, that is already being done by most stores in most states here. That type of thing will only work as long as parents abide by those laws. Realistically, there is no way to enforce it.

yeah, and i'm saying that's dumb. english law is relatively dynamic, but still dumb. i'm no patriot, i hate my country and the way it operates. the constitution has rendered US law static for over 200 years, seems like a bad idea to me

But it still works, more or less.

At least we still have free speech.

Is that such a good thing though? I honestly don't think all people should have the right to free speech, and I like that it is illegal to espouse hatred in my country.

Not saying one way is better than the other, just my opinion.

Posted by BestUsernameEver

The only overly violent games I play are Mortal Kombat and the rare GTAs, so it wouldn't really affect me since I don't play any shooters or horror games. If minecraft, trackmania, wipeout and lumines were banned for whatever reason though, that'd be different.

Edited by Pepsiman

@posh said:

yeah, and i'm saying that's dumb. english law is relatively dynamic, but still dumb. i'm no patriot, i hate my country and the way it operates. the constitution has rendered US law static for over 200 years, seems like a bad idea to me

I don't even know where to begin with this, but you might want to take a few legal history and constitutional law courses before painting such a broad picture of how the Constitution works in practice. The amendment system exists precisely because the founding fathers understood that the place of law in people's lives and its significance in the greater socioeconomic fabric of the world would change as the country aged; if they wanted the document preserved exactly as they envisioned it, they could have very easily left that aspect out. Hell, the Articles of Confederation, which we had before the Constitution as our canonical legal document, basically already lacked such a system, since any revisions to it required the unanimous consent of all the states that existed at the time and, what do you know, the only time it happened was to replace the busted thing that turned out to be with the Constitution we have now. We now have states' rights that enable the individual states to create their own laws when they don't inherently conflict with existing federal laws passed by the US Congress. The fight over things like GLBT rights would be even uglier if each state wasn't allowed to take a stand and set their own legal precedent internally. The significance of the Constitution is less that everything be taken literally in practice and more that it sets a philosophical precedence for the country's legal system being able to change and adapt to the needs of society whenever necessary. It's a deliberately flexible document if you actually take the time to read it and study the underlying language. The only people who seriously consider the Constitution to be static and unchanging are ultra-right-wing conservatives who object to American society deviating from their sense of what should be the moral status quo. It is certainly not otherwise the majority opinion amongst American lawyers and judges that the Constitution was supposed to remain a static document whose interpretation has to remain in line with 18th century standards; the way the Supreme Court has ruled on various cases throughout the centuries, but especially the last few decades, is highly indicative of that reality.

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool socialist who's emigrating away from the States for various personal reasons, so I'm not saying all of this as somebody who's particularly satisfied with a lot of the American legal system, far from it. But I didn't grow up surrounded by legal text books, attending law school classes with my mother, and reading essays on the nature of politics and American law by the men behind its creation to ever take seriously the notion that America's legal problems are all because the Constitution somehow prevents this society from being legally unchanging. It otherwise boggles the mind how the Thirteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act of 1964 could have ever possibly passed, among countless other laws. If you still have philosophical objections to how the American legal system operates after knowing all that, then great, that's your prerogative and lord knows we have a terrible Congressional status quo, but I suggest you at least better research the things you're calling out before being so absolutist it. It just makes your argument more solid and you're frankly lucky that none of the law school users on here have dropped by that know the specifics of the history and mechanics behind the Constitution even more deeply than I do. They don't take kindly to arguments presented against the existing Constitutional system that are based on factually wonky pretenses.

And for the record, nobody here is claiming the Founding Fathers were perfect and I suspect the system was set up the way it actually is because they recognized society would see parts of their views as flawed and anachronistic as time went on. They didn't want a country that they were risking dying to create to be beholden to their worldviews and ideals if it was a matter of survival. Since you specifically brought it up, I'd also suggest you better read up on slavery history in the US, as there were huge circumstantial reasons within the historical record as to why slavery wasn't immediately outlawed in the Constitution as it already had been back in Britain. It was a source of social tension even back then, but I think I've said enough and then some. I almost never come out and post on political or legal threads, but you managed to word your ideas in just the right way to get me to speak up as one of the few users on here with a personal and formal history of legal education in the US. So good on you for that, I guess.

Posted by crusader8463

I would probably stop playing most games as the ones that would get made probably wouldn't appeal to me anymore because they would be so censored to death. Then with all that new free time I would form a rag tag band of misfit rebels and start a rebellion to over throw the government and take back our right to view what we want.

Seriously though, I'm opposed to any and all forms of censorship, and if my government enacted any kind of blanket censorship on us I would fight it every and anyway I could until the day I die.

Posted by Stonyman65

@matti00 said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@posh said:

@TooWalrus said:

Get back to your silly Monarchy, kid. These guns are all that's keeping the King of England out of our god damn face.

well, that's just a dumb thing to say. and you think i dont think the monarchy is archaic and stupid too?

@Dagbiker said:

Yes. I also find peoples ability to follow laws layed down by their forbringer “hilarious“

the constitution was written by slave owners, and all around pieces of shit. pretty naive to think laws made up in the 1700s should still be relevant at all

@Stonyman65 said:

It's the basis of all laws in this country. The American Constitution is to US law what English Law is to the UK.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that video games are protected under the First Amendment, - the same way movies, art, and music is. http://techland.time.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-video-games-qualify-for-first-amendment-protection/

By law, the US Government can't ban, or even censor video games at all. If they tried to, the Supreme Court would overrule it.

The most anyone can do is restrict them to legal adults (anyone 18 or older). But even then, that is already being done by most stores in most states here. That type of thing will only work as long as parents abide by those laws. Realistically, there is no way to enforce it.

yeah, and i'm saying that's dumb. english law is relatively dynamic, but still dumb. i'm no patriot, i hate my country and the way it operates. the constitution has rendered US law static for over 200 years, seems like a bad idea to me

But it still works, more or less.

At least we still have free speech.

Is that such a good thing though? I honestly don't think all people should have the right to free speech, and I like that it is illegal to espouse hatred in my country.

Not saying one way is better than the other, just my opinion.

The problem (in my eyes anyway) is where does it stop? First it's video games, then movies, then music....

Who defines what "hatred" means in a legal sense? I think the President is a fucking moron, could that be considered hate speech?

There is way too much grey area there. You can't just go and make a law that this type of speech is okay but this type isn't. You can't stop people's opinions. Right or wrong.

I'm all for people being accountable for their actions, but you have to draw the line somewhere. People should be able to say what they want to and express themselves - as long as they don't act upon it.

Posted by oraknabo

I would say that a constitutional republic is just about the best you can get with a government. It puts the laws above any one person or group, but still allows for the amendment them if there is enough agreement. The US Constitution was pretty well considered, but we've had some pretty big amendments over the years, so there's no reason to see anything in it as set in stone forever. Also all our freedoms have limits, even freedom of speech. It's illegal to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, even though we have a first amendment. The important thing isn't that we have the right to be assholes and say hurtful things to each other. What matters is that we retain the right to criticize members of our government without worrying about disappearing. Similarly with guns, I don't see much problems with pistols and hunting rifles, but I don't see anything wrong with keeping people from having automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Maybe a provision that you have to serve a certain amount of time in the military could afford you the right, but it's basically unnecessary. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is for a well-armed militia, something we needed before we had a military, it doesn't say anything about owning guns for hunting or entertainment.

Edited by Picard

If violent games were ever banned, the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional. We'd be back to rippin' heads off with Sub-Zero in no time.

Posted by Turambar

Well, I'd pretty pretty damn against it on principle, but would be barely impacted by it practically. I mostly play strategy/tactics games and rpgs.

Edited by Turambar

@Picard said:

If violent games were ever banned, the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional. We'd be back to rippin' heads off with Sub-Zero in no time.

In fact, that's already happened, with Mortal Kombat specifically being referenced by Supreme Court justices as a piece of work with vast cultural influences.

  • 92 results
  • 1
  • 2