Indecent Game Sales Now A Felony In New York 398
Gamespot reports on the final passing of New York senate bill A8696, legislation proposed just last week, that now makes it a serious felony to sell or rent a violent game to minors. The bill makes it illegal to sell a console without parental control options and establishes a group to second guess the ESRB's rating decisions. "'This bill is impermissibly vague,' EMA president Bo Andersen said in a statement. 'A8696 seeks to apply real-world standards of violence to the fictional and fanciful world of video games, an environment in which they have no meaning. As a result, retailers and clerks will not and cannot know with certainty which video games could send them to jail under A8696. It was depressing to hear members of the Assembly note the constitutional problems with the bill and then state that they were voting for it.'" The senate seems to have no fear of possible overturn of the bill, and claims it's only thinking of the children.
Wow. cigs and beee (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned (Score:5, Insightful)
A felony?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:politicians. (Score:5, Insightful)
Political Chicanery (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, what is happening in this country where we've lost sight of what really matters?
Re:Just go to kid-whose-parents-dont-care's house (Score:3, Insightful)
You're forgetting another exciting factor. Johnny is usually the kid with the least parental supervision. He probably has a twisted little worldview and will get your kids into trouble.
I knew kids who had all the stuff who were and weren't like that, but anyway.
Re:politicians. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow. cigs and beee (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A felony?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just stop at parental controls. (Score:4, Insightful)
Who has time to be bothered by a troublesome kid.
Sure glad the kids at school, now I can have some peace.
Isn't there some kind of camp or afterschool activity I can send my kid to
Why don't you go play over at some one elses house
Parents don't raise their kids anymore, they expect government to do it, and government in turn wants to put THEIR religious and moral beliefs on our children, and punish the parents who disagree with THEIR views.
Re:politicians. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is New York we're talking about (Score:4, Insightful)
the penalty for selling two ounces
So this isn't an overreaction by the New York Senate - it's standard operating procedure! Even better, the laws weren't reformed for over 20 years. Just goes to show why we're the most dysfunctional state government in the country.
Re:politicians. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Political Chicanery (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, since this was passed by a state law, which are reserved under the federal constitution to be allowed to do quite a bit, I am not certain which constitution we are in violation of here.
Re:Just stop at parental controls. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most parents I know think they are at war with the schools because schools (an extension of the government) are trying undermine them as parents and raise the kids however they see fit. They whine and complain when the schools assign a lot of homework because "we don't have time to do anything as a family".
Of course, all they do as a family is eat fast food while watching TV before the kids lock themselves in their rooms for the evening so that Susie can show her boobs to boys on the internet while Johnny takes emo pictures and writes in his blog about how his parents hate him because they won't buy him the BMW he wants.
Re:politicians. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or Britain?
Re:Just stop at parental controls. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:politicians. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:politicians. (Score:2, Insightful)
Say it with me: THE US IS NOT CANADA
It might well be possible to reduce or eliminate handgun sales in the US, but it won't be possible in the same way, nor on the same timescale, as any other country.
Remember, the mindset under which this country was founded led to the right to go about armed (aka "bear arms", yo) being written into the constitution. This nation was founded on individuality, and not on doing what one is told.
Screw the children, think of the adults. (Score:5, Insightful)
You boys want this shut down? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned (Score:4, Insightful)
Agree or disagree with the reasoning, that's the way it is. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Yeah, It Won't Be Overturned (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:politicians. (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe a bigger problem is the fact that the average American almost worships his Constitution. Rather than asking if a given law is good or bad, he asks if it follows the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, which gets in the way of any rational debate. Please remember that, living in the XVIIIth century, the Founding Fathers were obviously out of touch with what is happening (what was will happen? what would happen? I hate tenses) in the XXIst.
Re:politicians. (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't say that things were precisely the same today as when the nation was founded.
But certain legacies from that time are still alive and strong today.
I take your meaning, but I also want to reiterate the point that those who forget the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them. The freedom of speech is necessary so that men can speak their minds and influence those of others. The freedom to bear arms is the only way to guarantee the freedom of speech. I could go on down the list, but the fact is that there are points at which force is the only valid response. When you get there, yes, the system has failed. But the old adage about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots remains true.
Re:Wow. cigs and beee (Score:4, Insightful)
Candidate A. In my Last Term I lowered crime by 25%, added more funding for social services, The graduation to college rate is the highest in the world, and I lowered taxes by 40%.
Candidate B. I passed the law to save your kids from video game violance. I passed a law to insure that your kids will not hurt their knees when they fall, I passed a law that will make sure your kid will never talk to a homeless person again. All this for only a 10% increase in taxes.
Well yes these are exadarations. But the "Think of the Children" effect people on an emotional level while Saving Taxes, better use of funds reduction in crime is more of a Thinking type of thing. It is easier to sell emotion then thoughts.
Re:politicians. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, of course they don't fear it being overturned, which it will be on plain 1st Ammendment grounds just like every other law like it that has ever been passed. What does it being overturned cost them? Nothing, not a damn thing. They passed the happy-feel-good-think-of-the-children-but-don't-a
If we actually looked badly upon legislators passing blatantly unconstitutional laws that they know will get overturned and waste taxpayer money, then they might possibly have some fear. But as it stands, the people they are catering to would be pleased as punch to throw out free speech if it gave them the illusion that the government is taking care of their children for them. This is nothing but upside for those politicians.
Re:politicians. (Score:2, Insightful)
Man, if ever there was a post that needed to be modded up, this is it. I agree completely. The level of worship we afford to the founding fathers borders on ridiculous. Yes they were very smart men. Yes they had a lot of foresight. They were still just men, which means that they weren't perfect.
The Constitution is not the Bible. Its a living document, and it was designed as such, with explicit measures for making changes to it. Our forefathers designed it this way, because they knew that they were but men, so they couldn't predict or perfect everything in our country.
Its useful to reflect upon their wisdom, but through the lens of modern day. I don't buy that we are somehow less intelligent or wise than the founding fathers.
I know this sounds wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who needs proof? Easy political points! (Score:4, Insightful)
B) Realize that if you vote for it the zealots will vote for you and if not they'll bully you in the media.
C) Realize that the bill will be immediately overturned by the judiciary, who are not under the same vote pressure.
D) Pass the bill, reap the rewards, trust the judges to do their jobs and shut down the bill.
Lame, cheap and easy. All it costs is voter money and wasted time, but tax money is free so who cares!
This is why we call it politics instead of governance.
Fuck the Children (Score:4, Insightful)
Alternatives for Kids' Free Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, there are some kids who'll go pick up a DIY radio kit, code, or play basketball in their free time. But judging from the kids on my block in Brooklyn there are plenty who are not adept enough or self-motivated enough to do those things, but quite capable of doing harm if not directed or distracted.
Yaye Insane! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:politicians. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A felony?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:politicians. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:politicians. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the best thing you can do is to do your fucking job and at least slow the march of evil for a little while, rather than joining it (or laying down and taking it) for your own greed. Another term is useless if you're not helping anyway.
When you grow up you'll learn that you need to pick your battles. If this is the one end-all issue that you'll go to the wall for, then yes, you do. Otherwise, you're out on your ass before you can do anything actually useful. And for what? A bill that has a modest chance of becoming law and no chance of getting past the Supreme Court? Don't think so. This is election bait, and if you were in office, you'd have just fallen for it.
This is why the cute, ideological, naive first-term representatives are often one-termers.
Re:politicians. (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. It's working in Iraq. It worked for YEARS in Afghanistan against the Soviets (and I'm sure they were using excessive force). It has been working in certain South American countries. I also think that the unwillingness to be perceived as using excessive force would be multiplied domestically, but that's just my opinion with no real facts to back it up. Assuming that you are correct, and that there's no way citizens could fight federal and state governments, the possession of firearms is still a deterrent to local government corruption (where it's likely more needed anyway).
Re:politicians. (Score:3, Insightful)
So who gets nailed by this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah... that's what I thought.
Re:Who needs proof? Easy political points! (Score:3, Insightful)