# "Games are neither art nor media." - Censorship push



## Del (May 24, 2005)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050520/ap_on_hi_te/video_games

Ill. Senate OKs Video Game Restrictions 

Fri May 20, 9:43 AM ET 

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - The Illinois Senate approved a version of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's proposed restrictions on the sales of violent and sexually explicit video games to children, even though some senators said the idea is unconstitutional. The measure approved Thursday would require store owners to determine which games are too violent or sexually explicit for anyone under 18. Anyone selling them to a minor could be fined.

Both chambers have now approved the video game restrictions, but the Senate version removed the possibility of jail time for offenders. That means the revised bill now goes back to the House.

The sponsor, Sen. Deanna Demuzio, denied the measure would interfere with free speech rights.

"Video games are not art or media," she said. "They are simulations, not all that different from the simulations used by the U.S. military in preparation for war."

But other senators said the courts have already struck down similar laws elsewhere. They predicted the Senate-approved measure would never take effect and the state would end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Still, even some critics said they would not vote against the measure for fear it would be used against them politically.

"I'm going to vote for this bill, but I'm voting for it for one reason — because this is a political bill," said Sen. Mike Jacobs. "If I vote against it, it will show up in a campaign mail piece."

------

I personally like the system we have now just fine. I also take exception to the absurd language "Games are neither art nor media." Not sure where this post should go so I put it here.

Del
www.esprawl.com


----------



## zenld (May 24, 2005)

Games are *both* Art and Media.

Interested in seeing where this goes.

zen


----------



## Alzrius (May 24, 2005)

I agree with Zenld; games are an art form and a media (though I feel that the former position is more easy to defend than the latter). Just because something is created with the intent of sale, and/or worked on by multiple individuals, doesn't mean it can't be considered artwork. The idea that the only real art is made for its own sake is narrow-minded and much too exclusive.

Likewise, it seems ridiculous to say that video games aren't media. Media is anything that is a means of mass communication to the public. I think that includes video games, which are sold in tens of thousands (if not more) and easily contain specific messages and characters, themes, etc. which become part of the public consciousness. Likewise, saying that video games aren't media ignores that they share the staples of current media, including full motion video, voice-acting, soundtracks, and more.

I hope this gets soundly defeated.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (May 24, 2005)

Dudes, "Bloodrayne" is _so_ totally a simulation. I meet (meat?) Nazi-killing vampire hotties all the time!

P.S. WTF? Has this lady even _seen_ a video game? How is "Katamari Damacy" even remotely alike to a military simulation? Err, outside of the pseudo-tank controls.


----------



## Samnell (May 24, 2005)

Disgusting. May it fail, and hard.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 24, 2005)

Eh, I'm fine with the effect of the bill -- young kids can't buy guns or alcohol or pornography, and violent video games are equally mature -- but not with the spirit of it.  Saying "We're keeping naughty things out of the hands of kids" is fine with me.  Saying "We don't have to justify ourselves because games are not free speech" is worrisome.

Anyway, this thread is political, so it might get closed.  Tread lightly.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 24, 2005)

May the ghost of Marshall Mcluhan haunt the Illinois statehouse.


----------



## Zappo (May 24, 2005)

I don't think that this is completely wrong. There are ratings and restrictions on movies, why should videogames be any different? Especially now that games are getting close to being photorealistic - check out any of the E3 Playstation 3 demos.

OTOH, if I've understood anything of how a politician's mind works, the laws they are preparing are _more_ restrictive than those that apply to movies. Now _this _is wrong - I think that games should be neither more nor less restricted than movies.

And the idea that the store owner should determine which games are too violent or sexually explicit is ludicrous. They are not qualified for that and they are not supposed to be.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 24, 2005)

Zappo said:
			
		

> OTOH, if I've understood anything of how a politician's mind works, the laws they are preparing are _more_ restrictive than those that apply to movies.



I think that's a good guess, based on them saying that free speech doesn't apply to videogames.

I have no problem with the voluntary videogame rating system actually being enforced at the checkout stand. I worked for a videogame company that released a Mature rated game while I was there, and I absolutely agree that it wasn't appropriate for younger teens and below. But government is absolutely the worst way to regulate this.

There's no incentive for them to get it right, and no damage to them if they get it wrong. Anyone who would vote against a politician for going too far is likely going to vote against a politician who voted for this law, period, and few of the people who would vote for a politician because they voted for this law will mind if it goes too far in the minds of the "savages" who play Grand Theft Auto.


----------



## Zappo (May 24, 2005)

The concept that the store owner should determine what games should or shouldn't be sold to minors is especially irking to me. The store owner has no place taking that decision at all. They aren't psychologists and they don't have time to check out all the games that are released anyway. As if that wasn't enough, they are the people who are supposed to sell the game. Depending on how it works, this could make the law completely futile. "You sold GTA4 to that kid!" "So? I'm the one who decides what can be sold in my shop. And I decided that GTA4 is ok."


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 24, 2005)

On the other hand, short of the Illinois legislature throwing check out clerks at Best Buy in jail, this isn't anything that movie theater employees haven't been asked to do for decades.


----------



## S'mon (May 24, 2005)

Games are art, and media - and the sale of adult-content games should be restricted to an age appropriate audience IMO, just like with films & videos.  The language sounds worrying though.

BTW clearly this thread is 100% political.  Certainly moreso than my comment yesterday that some cultures are more warlike than others, which got a thread locked...


----------



## yennico (May 24, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> young kids can't buy guns or alcohol or pornography



Are you living in a dream? Wake up   In reality kids get acohol because some store owner does not check their ID. I do not like that kids can get not for their age approbiate goods (alcohol, guns, pornography, etc.) , but if the goverment makes a law against something, they also must take care that every person uses this law.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2005)

Ditto what S'mon said...(hmm "S'mon Said"- there's a good name for a game)

And to reinforce Zappo, the store owner should decide what his store contains, but society should decide to whom he can sell it (as long as no human rights are violated by those strictures).  Restricting violent video games to persons over a certain age is no more a problem for me than restricting the viewing audiences of certain movies.

Especially since some of these games are hyperviolent, ultracynical and dehumanizing.

Of course, any restriction has to be grounded in REALITY.  Restrict them for the same reasons we restrict access to movies, don't try to redefine what they are- that won't pass any Court's "laugh test."


----------



## RangerWickett (May 24, 2005)

yennico said:
			
		

> Are you living in a dream? Wake up   In reality kids get acohol because some store owner does not check their ID. I do not like that kids can get not for their age approbiate goods (alcohol, guns, pornography, etc.) , but if the goverment makes a law against something, they also must take care that every person uses this law.




I figured it was obvious that people will still get things they want, even if they're against the law.  My mom let me see Terminator 2 in theaters, and I was, like, 11 or 12 at the time.  Parents will give their kids things, kids will scam or steal to get things, and store owners will not care and let kids buy things.

The idea of the law is fine -- make it clear that the government doesn't approve of kids being exposed to these things, with the understanding that they'll still manage it -- but the spirit of the law is what I dislike.


----------



## philreed (May 24, 2005)

My problem with this is it will do nothing to change the view of most parents who are, in my experience, the biggest source of violent video games for kids.

When I was playing on XBox Live I FREQUENTLY encounter little kids that should in no way be playing online -- especially with live voice chat. The parents are completely responsible for the kids being on there. A Ghost Recon game packed with adults is no place for kids.

The problem is the parents. They still look at a game as a game and are too stupid to look beyond and see that these days some games are not for kids.


----------



## glass (May 24, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I figured it was obvious that people will still get things they want, even if they're against the law.  My mom let me see Terminator 2 in theaters, and I was, like, 11 or 12 at the time.  Parents will give their kids things, kids will scam or steal to get things, and store owners will not care and let kids buy things.




Unless your mum was a theatre manager, how was it up to her? Were the staff just going to take her word for it that you were whatever age you needed to be to see T2 over there, even though you clearly weren't?


glass.


----------



## yennico (May 24, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> My problem with this is it will do nothing to change the view of most parents who are, in my experience, the biggest source of violent video games for kids.



I totally agree. Some kids can use a PC and internet better than their parents. These kids can use file sharing programs to download any film, game, etc. they want.
Their parents can not or does not want to control their kids. The parents are responsible for the actions of their kids.

Kids cost time, time many parents do not want to spend on them.


----------



## Henry (May 24, 2005)

glass said:
			
		

> Unless your mum was a theatre manager, how was it up to her? Were the staff just going to take her word for it that you were whatever age you needed to be to see T2 over there, even though you clearly weren't?




A word of clarification; Terminator 2 was rated "R" in the U.S., and that rating means that you can't get in to see it if you are younger than age 17 _without a parent or legal guardian._ So his mom could have technically gone with him to see it, and it would be perfectly legal. 

What instead often ends up happening is that as long as any sufficiently old enough adult accompanies them, the staff usually says nothing. It's how a lot of younger kids get an older brother or sister to chaperone them into the movie against mom's wishes.


----------



## S'mon (May 24, 2005)

Terminator-2 was a "15" in UK by the way - only for age 15+.  I saw it on the day of the August Coup in Moscow which was a little scary...


----------



## GlassJaw (May 24, 2005)

What I don't get is that there already is a rating system on video games.  The game industry supports it and put it there.

It seems to me that, politcal grandstanding aside, they want to penalize and fine retailers that sell these games to minors.  The main problem with the rating system up to now is that it really can't be enforced since.  The rating system is more for the consumer than it is for the retailer.  It's there to show mom and dad that little Billy probably shouldn't be playing GTA.

Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with a bill like this if it means that game developers could now make games without lawmakers on their backs all the time and being blame for the fall of society.


----------



## Desdichado (May 24, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> On the other hand, short of the Illinois legislature throwing check out clerks at Best Buy in jail, this isn't anything that movie theater employees haven't been asked to do for decades.



Exactly.  And since video games generally already have ratings, I don't see how this is anything new at all.


----------



## Umbran (May 24, 2005)

Politics, anyone?


----------



## Mystery Man (May 24, 2005)

_Let's not go there. -Henry_

_Oh, Henry! - Mystery Man.  _


----------



## Henry (May 24, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Politics, anyone?




I saw it as more about gaming-related censorship than politics, but if people turn it into one, I'll have to shut it down.


----------



## GlassJaw (May 24, 2005)

> And since video games generally already have ratings, I don't see how this is anything new at all.




But the rating system was put in place by the game publishers themselves, not any government-policed organization.  Technically, there is no penalty for a retailer to sell a MA-rated game to a minor.  Like I said, the rating system is more for consumer knowledge.  The way I read this bill, it would slap fines on said retailers.


----------



## spider_minion (May 24, 2005)

I remember one time I was at Wal*Mart and there was some little kid there with his mom.  The kid shouted "I want Grand Theft Auto!" and his mom was wondering around looking for it.  I found this very surprising.

I sorta agree with the spirit of the bill, but it has some issues.  The first is that parents are (generally) out of the loop when it comes to video games, so they will buy their kids the games anyhow.  Nor do I like lawmakers making bills on things they clearly know nothing about.  I agree with the other posters--video games are media and art.  If nothing else, the graphics and music qualify games as art.

Implicit in the law is the belief that violent video games will harm children.  But how many of us have seen violent movies when we were kids?  Did we turn out alright?  In one of my philosophy classes we had a similar debate on TV and children, and the statistical evidence on the topic is inconclusive.  Conventional wisdom says that games are harmful, but the law should be based on more than just intuition.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 24, 2005)

And we have a rating system too!


----------



## spider_minion (May 24, 2005)

Zappo said:
			
		

> I don't think that this is completely wrong. There are ratings and restrictions on movies, why should videogames be any different? Especially now that games are getting close to being photorealistic - check out any of the E3 Playstation 3 demos.




I'm amazed at the graphical power of the PS3, but its like games are getting _too_ realistic.  Immersive first-person shooters seem to be the trend for the next-gen systems--I counted 3 for the PS3.  I think we'll here at lot more cries for censorship as gaming gets more mainstream and realistic.  Most parents will probably remain oblivious.

(Not really related to the topic at hand, but all those next-gen games just looked so derivative and unorignal.  I have this feeling that developers will be encouraged to push the envelop on graphics, but not innovate with the games themselves.)


----------



## vulcan_idic (May 24, 2005)

As an Illinois resident, I am now ashamed for the first time in my memory to be associated with my state.  On the other hand, if this thing does actually become law I'm fairly certain it will be swiftly brought up in court on 1st Amendment issues dispite what the honorable Senator said, and I doubt it will stand up in court of law.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (May 24, 2005)

spider_minion said:
			
		

> (Not really related to the topic at hand, but all those next-gen games just looked so derivative and unorignal. I have this feeling that developers will be encouraged to push the envelop on graphics, but not innovate with the games themselves.)



And isn't that sad? My favorite games are all old SNES and freeware.


----------



## Psionicist (May 24, 2005)

In other news, online piracy has increased by 50% since last week.


----------



## diaglo (May 24, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Politics, anyone?




my thoughts exactly.


----------



## spider_minion (May 24, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> And isn't that sad? My favorite games are all old SNES and freeware.




It is.  Me and my brother joke that all the best RPGs are for the SNES.  Most of my PS2 games are either obscure or 2D.


----------



## GlassJaw (May 24, 2005)

> Originally Posted by Umbran
> Politics, anyone?





> my thoughts exactly.




Well then let the moderators worry about it.  It's their job after all.



> I'm amazed at the graphical power of the PS3, but its like games are getting too realistic.




So are you saying that as the graphics get better, we'll have more kids getting screwed up?

I have no problem with a rating system, even when it's enforced by the gub'ment.  I'd rather have that and be able to _choose_ what I buy or watch or listen to rather than having THEM tell me what's good or bad for me (or my kids, if I had them).


----------



## spider_minion (May 24, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> So are you saying that as the graphics get better, we'll have more kids getting screwed up?




Maybe, but I really don't know.  I do find realistic video game violence to be distasteful, which is what I meant by the "too realistic" comment.  To each his own.


----------



## Voadam (May 24, 2005)

Del said:
			
		

> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050520/ap_on_hi_te/video_games
> 
> Ill. Senate OKs Video Game Restrictions
> 
> ...




The story doesn't say whether the voluntary code on the games is sufficient if a store uses that as a guide for who to restrict sales to.


----------



## Qlippoth (May 24, 2005)

*...trying desperately to avoid the political no-fly zone...*

I realize that the intent of this legislation is noble--I'm not a parent, but I can definitely see how some parents want to keep their kids as far away from questionable material as they can. However, I think laws like this do a great disservice. It takes responsibility off the parent and puts it on the retailer. Yes, parents who already monitor the TV programs/games/Internet sites their kids consume will still continue to do so. But wouldn't time, money, and publicity be better spent educating parents about "what's out there" rather than playing "content goalie" and putting the onus on retailers?


----------



## Samnell (May 24, 2005)

I can't think of a further response that would sail clear of the no politics rule. Ah well.


----------



## GlassJaw (May 24, 2005)

> But wouldn't time, money, and publicity be better spent educating parents about "what's out there" rather than playing "content goalie" and putting the onus on retailers?





> I can't think of a further response that would sail clear of the no politics rule. Ah well.




I agree.  The only comments I have at this point involve "Big Brother", and that is definitely devling into the political.


----------



## BOZ (May 24, 2005)

i don't think there's anything wrong in denying sale of these products to minors, as long as it is done in the same way as movies, magazines, etc.


----------



## diaglo (May 24, 2005)

BOZ said:
			
		

> i don't think there's anything wrong in denying sale of these products to minors, as long as it is done in the same way as movies, magazines, etc.




Tipper, is that you?


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 24, 2005)

I prefer freedom to purchase what I want, when I want. 

That said. Having seen mega-gamestores in Japan where adult titles are 1/2 the store, I do believe in the need for some restriction. It makes no sense at all to me to have 18 or older stickers on adult films and magazines, but none on the "exact same content" digitized in a computer game.

There must be some laws in the US about it. The adult anime games shipped over aren't sold to miners here either. I see this as a good thing.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 24, 2005)

I think we need some other means of sales. I dislike that I must be restricted in what I might be offered because the store has to cater to someone's kids and might not carry a title rather than risk a lawsuit for it falling into 'the wrong hands'. I can't imagine what it would be, though.


----------



## BOZ (May 24, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> Tipper, is that you?




now i'm insulted.  

maybe i'm just missing something then.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 24, 2005)

This doesn't bother me. I've been used to not being able to watch movies when I was younger because they were too violent. I can handle it now, but only because I watch it objectively. Video games should be no different.

What DOES bother me, is the statement "Video Games are neither art nor media." It doesn't make sense. If you use the above logic, then they must be art and/or media.


----------



## Hellefire (May 24, 2005)

Hmmm...Big broth....no...spend time with your ki....no...hmmm...everything I have to say jumps over to politics....

As a parent, I say that parents should stop whining about schools/stores/video games/tv/movies/magazines not raising/babysitting their kids well enough and do it themselves. I will help my child understand the world, any parts of it, including the graphically violent, sexual, whatever. I think that laws are not a good exchange for a parent.

Or is that too political?

Aaron

p.s. yes, I think this is censorship, and yes, I think it is crap like all other types of censorship.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2005)

There are a myriad of published studies that show that exposure to violence (in any form, real or simulated) can lead to short term desensitization to violence.   Long term effects are, as yet, not fully understood.

(Personally, I have childhood memories of watching kung fu movies with my buddies, and then we'd go out and emulate the movie we just watched, kicking and punching ourselves silly.  My nephews did the same to their parents...not so fun.)

The American Military, however learned that in WWI & II, something like 35% of their soldiers froze on the battlefield when asked to pull the trigger at human targets.  After they switched to firearms training on human silhouettes, that % dropped to single digits.  Now they're doing some of that training on virual reality setups.

My point?

We live in a dangerous and violent world, and children need to be aware of that.  However, its a lesson that doesn't need to be reinforced by hyperviolent entertainment forms.

And real world parents- even the best ones- cannot guard children against age-inappropriate material.  This is where the law steps in.

Censorship does not refer to anyone limiting availability, but rather specifically to the *government restriction of content* (which may be ACHIEVED by limiting availability if the restriction is overbroad).  So, if someone over 17 can get Grand Theft Auto at Wal-Mart, but my 14 year old cousin can't, I have no problem with that.  We aren't restricting adult oriented material from adults, but from children.

And if that restriction has the reinforcement of fines and/or jail time (misdemeanor level only), I'm still fine with that.


----------



## BOZ (May 25, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> And real world parents- even the best ones- cannot *always* guard children against age-inappropriate material.  This is where the law steps in.




fixed that for you.    you pretty much said what i was thinking dead-on otherwise.


----------



## VirgilCaine (May 25, 2005)

zenld said:
			
		

> Games are *both* Art and Media.
> 
> Interested in seeing where this goes.
> 
> zen




Dude, it's _Illinois_.


----------



## BOZ (May 25, 2005)

*cries*


----------



## mojo1701 (May 25, 2005)

BOZ said:
			
		

> *cries*




There, there. 

There, there.


----------



## Greatwyrm (May 25, 2005)

> "I'm going to vote for this bill, but I'm voting for it for one reason — because this is a political bill," said Sen. Mike Jacobs. "If I vote against it, it will show up in a campaign mail piece."




And I think that pretty much says it all right there.

You know, just a few days ago, another politician was getting indicted for corruption here.  I actually heard the director of the local FBI field office remark that while they had to go looking for corruption in other places, they were always busy in Illinois.  Not to accuse Sen. Jacobs of anything, but I think there are plenty of politicians in Illinois who just want to be mentioned in the press without the word "allegations" appearing somewhere in the same story.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 25, 2005)

Thanks boz!


----------



## BOZ (May 25, 2005)

corruption in illinois politics?  oh, never!


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (May 25, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> My problem with this is it will do nothing to change the view of most parents who are, in my experience, the biggest source of violent video games for kids.
> 
> When I was playing on XBox Live I FREQUENTLY encounter little kids that should in no way be playing online -- especially with live voice chat. The parents are completely responsible for the kids being on there. A Ghost Recon game packed with adults is no place for kids.
> 
> The problem is the parents. They still look at a game as a game and are too stupid to look beyond and see that these days some games are not for kids.





I used to manage a video store which rented videogames along with movies.  Because the chain had no age guidelines for renting movies to kids, children as young as 8 would rent "M" rated games.  The parents had to sign for the rentals if the child was a minor (that went for movies and games of any rating), but it was obvious they NEVER paid attention to the game content or genre.  A woman once stormed into my store, actually screaming and cursing me for renting a game to her son which she found "deplorable and evil".  As calmly as I could, I looked her in the eye and said, "Ma'am, if you'll just look here, you signed the rental agreement form, which means you were present when you son chose this game.  It's not my job to raise your child.  It's yours."  On top of it, she owed a late fee.  BURN!


----------



## Arnwyn (May 25, 2005)

DungeonmasterCal said:
			
		

> A woman once stormed into my store, actually screaming and cursing me for renting a game to her son which she found "deplorable and evil".  As calmly as I could, I looked her in the eye and said, "Ma'am, if you'll just look here, you signed the rental agreement form, which means you were present when you son chose this game.  It's not my job to raise your child.  It's yours."  On top of it, she owed a late fee.  BURN!



Ahhh... it's so satisfying to read something like this!


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 25, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Ahhh... it's so satisfying to read something like this!




Here's a site for you then: 

http://www.actsofgord.com/


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (May 25, 2005)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Here's a site for you then:
> 
> http://www.actsofgord.com/




Crap...I'm at work and can't spare the time!  Those are great!


----------



## D-rock (May 26, 2005)

spider_minion said:
			
		

> Maybe, but I really don't know.  I do find realistic video game violence to be distasteful, which is what I meant by the "too realistic" comment.  To each his own.




In a way I find cartoon like violence worse, in some ways it trivializes it more.


----------



## Cutter XXIII (May 26, 2005)

Del said:
			
		

> "I'm going to vote for this bill, but I'm voting for it for one reason — because this is a political bill," said Sen. Mike Jacobs. "If I vote against it, it will show up in a campaign mail piece."




This part sickens me the most. Mike Jacobs needs to lose his job, and develop a brain, a spine, and thoughts of his own.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 26, 2005)

Unfortunately, that is the eternal pitfall of electoral politics.  Any elected official has to be aware of what the populace wants.  Any unpopular vote could be grounds that cost an official his job.

That's why we have the unelected judiciary!


----------



## Cutter XXIII (May 26, 2005)

Hey, we get the leaders we deserve.


----------



## BOZ (May 26, 2005)

This aggression will not stand, man!


----------



## Cutter XXIII (May 26, 2005)

That's just, like, your opinion man.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (May 26, 2005)

Just don't let this thread get too political or it's bye-bye thread.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 26, 2005)

Cutter XXIII said:
			
		

> That's just, like, your opinion man.




Let me tell you something, bandejo. You pull your crazy stuff again: you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, and stick it up your butt and pull the trigger until it goes 'click.'


----------



## Darth K'Trava (May 27, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Let me tell you something, bandejo. You pull your crazy stuff again: you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, and stick it up your butt and pull the trigger until it goes 'click.'





  

Talk about your explosive enemas.....


----------



## BOZ (May 27, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Let me tell you something, bandejo. You pull your crazy stuff again: you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, and stick it up your butt and pull the trigger until it goes 'click.'




Don't --- with the Jesus.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (May 27, 2005)

Jesus is Da Man!


----------



## mojo1701 (May 27, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Jesus is Da Man!




He's a pederast, too.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (May 27, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> He's a pederast, too.




I don't think so!


----------



## Angcuru (May 27, 2005)

DungeonmasterCal said:
			
		

> I used to manage a video store which rented videogames along with movies.  Because the chain had no age guidelines for renting movies to kids, children as young as 8 would rent "M" rated games.  The parents had to sign for the rentals if the child was a minor (that went for movies and games of any rating), but it was obvious they NEVER paid attention to the game content or genre.  A woman once stormed into my store, actually screaming and cursing me for renting a game to her son which she found "deplorable and evil".  As calmly as I could, I looked her in the eye and said, "Ma'am, if you'll just look here, you signed the rental agreement form, which means you were present when you son chose this game.  It's not my job to raise your child.  It's yours."  On top of it, she owed a late fee.  BURN!



Damn straight.  It's the parents' job to make sure their kids don't see inappropriate material.  Bills like this are simply ludicrus, and 'stepping stones' towards more extreme measures..



> "I'm going to vote for this bill, but I'm voting for it for one reason — because this is a political bill," said Sen. Mike Jacobs. "If I vote against it, it will show up in a campaign mail piece."



This man needs to be removed from office NOW!  He's blatantly stating that his votes are based on protecting his own political career, which IMO should be punishable by a public flaying with dull butter knives.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (May 27, 2005)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> This man needs to be removed from office NOW!  He's blatantly stating that his votes are based on protecting his own political career, which IMO should be punishable by a public flaying with dull butter knives.




Ah, but you forget; he is an _Illinois_ politician.  Our last governor is under indictment, our current governor is headed there, the mayor of Chicago is on shaky ground himself.  It's a pretty sad situation.

Don't worry about this too much, though.  They've tried to pass legislation pretty much exactly like this before, and been ruled unconstitutional each time.  There's pretty much no chance this law ever goes into effect, much less ever gets enforced.


----------



## Cutter XXIII (May 27, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> He's a pederast, too.




"What's a pederast, Walter?"

"Shut the ---- up, Donny."


----------



## mojo1701 (May 27, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> I don't think so!




Yes, he is. That is the nature of the Jesus.



			
				Cutter XXIII said:
			
		

> "What's a pederast, Walter?"
> 
> "Shut the ---- up, Donny."




Thank you. Did you notice the bulge in his pants in the flashback part of the scene? Bag of Birdseed.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (May 27, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Yes, he is. That is the nature of the Jesus.




Must be your version, 'cause it sure ain't my version!


----------



## mojo1701 (May 27, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Must be your version, 'cause it sure ain't my version!




I don't think you understand who the Jesus is. That creep can roll, man.


----------



## GlassJaw (May 27, 2005)

This thread has religion AND politics!! Wow!



> Just don't let this thread get too political or it's bye-bye thread.




I've seen threads closed for a lot less than this.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (May 27, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> I don't think you understand who the Jesus is. That creep can roll, man.





THE Jesus I know is the REAL DEAL. Not whatever imitation that you are thinking of.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 27, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> THE Jesus I know is the REAL DEAL. Not whatever imitation that you are thinking of.




Not Jesus. I'm talking about _The_ Jesus. 

Quintana.


----------



## BOZ (May 27, 2005)

before people get too upset, we've been quoting lines from the movie The Big Lebowski.  One of the characters is named Jesus (as in “Hey-Zeus”, though he pronounces it like JC) and mojo1701 is using this guy as his avatar.


----------



## Cutter XXIII (May 27, 2005)

_That_ Jesus is not the issue here. We're talkin' Quintana. And it's not my fault.

"Hello! Hello! So every time--I just want to understand this, Sir--every time a thread is _micturated_ upon in these fair forums, I'm to provide compensation?"

By the way, who wants to bet that there's another thread about this thread, but located in the super-secret Moderator forum? Consider it a grand experiment, with censorship and Jesus included.


----------



## BOZ (May 27, 2005)

it's been too long since i've seen that wonderful film.  it will inspire me to go bowling again.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 27, 2005)

BOZ said:
			
		

> it's been too long since i've seen that wonderful film.  it will inspire me to go bowling again.




I know the feeling. After I showed some friends of mine, we all said to each other, "Ah, f*** it. Let's go bowling."


----------



## Del (May 27, 2005)

To be clear I'm all for keeping kids from adult oriented products. I constantly have to deal with my tween cousins adventures online, whether it be keeping them from porn, or debugging their virus soup that passes as their computers.

I take exception to the declaration that games are junk, and neither art or media.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (May 28, 2005)

BOZ said:
			
		

> before people get too upset, we've been quoting lines from the movie The Big Lebowski.  One of the characters is named Jesus (as in “Hey-Zeus”, though he pronounces it like JC) and mojo1701 is using this guy as his avatar.





I think he shoulda made it crystal clear. Not all have seen this so-called movie. I for one saw that the references had been offensive IMO and reacted accordingly.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 28, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> I think he shoulda made it crystal clear. Not all have seen this so-called movie. I for one saw that the references had been offensive IMO and reacted accordingly.




Most people don't call JC "The Jesus" in English. At least, none that I'm aware of, but I am sorry, and I shall refrain from doing so (or at least add it in spoiler tags in future posts).


----------



## Cutter XXIII (May 28, 2005)

[movie quote]Oh, please dear! I've got news for you: the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint. I got buddies who died face-down in the muck so you and I could enjoy this family restaurant. Don't run away from this, Dude! Goddamnit, this affects all of us![/movie]


----------



## BOZ (May 28, 2005)

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1800025223


----------



## mojo1701 (May 28, 2005)

Cutter XXIII said:
			
		

> [movie quote]Oh, please dear! I've got news for you: the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint. I got buddies who died face-down in the muck so you and I could enjoy this family restaurant. Don't run away from this, Dude! Goddamnit, this affects all of us![/movie]




Our Basic Freedoms!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118715/. IMDb is better, IMO.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 29, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> I know the feeling. After I showed some friends of mine, we all said to each other, "Ah, f*** it. Let's go bowling."




And then you could watch Kingpin to get out of that mood, when shown what a deadly sport it can be


----------



## Impeesa (May 31, 2005)

I don't see the fuss. Stodgy authority figures are well within their rights to decide what is art and what is not. And it's certainly the retailer's responsibility to control sales of the things that most threaten our youth.

--Impeesa--


----------



## mojo1701 (May 31, 2005)

Impeesa said:
			
		

> I don't see the fuss. Stodgy authority figures are well within their rights to decide what is art and what is not. And it's certainly the retailer's responsibility to control sales of the things that most threaten our youth.
> 
> --Impeesa--




How could I forget?


----------



## Del (Jun 1, 2005)

Impeesa said:
			
		

> I don't see the fuss. Stodgy authority figures are well within their rights to decide what is art and what is not. And it's certainly the retailer's responsibility to control sales of the things that most threaten our youth.
> 
> --Impeesa--




Sweet. The only one I caught before was the sitter strip that Tycho and Gabe reccomend as their response to criticism of computer games.


----------

