Calax

True... between Resident Evil and Super Mario. But what about between Call of Duty 4 and God of War? I know that there are no shortage of parents who will decided in general on movies by reviews, but if one is on the edge they'll go see it.

Depends on what you mean by dvd sets. If it's a tv show, usually the parent watched it the first time it was running and the kid loved it. For books... hell nobody checks books (my parents were really confused when I asked them what "fondle" meant in 5th grade due to a book)

Still oro, it's not like a parent, even a gaming parent, is going to play an entire game just because their kid wants it an d they want to make sure it's "safe".

Thing is, movies are easy for parents to screen and know about because they're such a big thing and only 90 minutes long. A game? not so much.

Well, usually the conservatives are anti-regulation and the liberals are babysitter state. I'm gonna guess that this'll be either ejected or shot down http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/02/scotus.vi...x.html?hpt=Sbin Scallia seems to think that this would create a department of censorship in california

http://kotaku.com/5678903/supreme-court-pu...-video-game-law It would seem that Scallia is... very very critical of the California law.

Read it again, it doesn't say that. It's saying that was the reasoning of lower courts, but for some reason the Supreme Court wants to take another look. They could've just accepted the Ninth Circus decision and that would be the end of it. Edit: I bet if you polled legal experts before the corporate free speech decision, most would have said the court would rule against the corporations. Btw, it's interesting that the people who were against corporate free speech are probably the same people who say games are protected free speech. But aren't games made and sold by corporations? A couple things: One, there's actually a line in that article you apparently missed where it's suggested that the court may have accepted the case in order to simply but this to rest totally (as the other legal battles along these lines have cost various states 2 million put together). Two, I don't really know what the hell you're talking about polling the experts about Three, Who said I'm against free speech for anything? Now, corporations are allowed free speech, but using money is not a speaking action if that's what you're getting at. Also with the "aren't games sold by corporations" idiocy, SO ARE BOOKS, MUSIC, MOVIES, AND ANY OTHER MEDIA YOU CAN THINK OF! All those media are also protected by free speech so go figure numbskull.

I'm neither and both at the same time. In order for this law to pass, the government has to show that self regulation wouldn't work at all, and that the Law is the only way to properly regulate this form of speech. Neither of the two lower parts of the court have decided this was true, and kept the protection of free speech in place. Basically congress cannot make a law that regulates speech unless it falls under the obscenity category or the category of a threat (to public order or otherwise). And even then they have to show that the ESRB and similar regulatory bodies are incapable of doing it themselves. I'm not necessarily anti- or pro- regulation in general, until it comes to very specific topics, like freedom of speech and the regulation of the access to what is considered free speech.

*shrugs* doesn't matter to me that I'm "In bed" with rush. I may disagree with the man 99% of the time, but even disagreeable dinks do have some good points. That said, the article you linked basically amounted to "Yeah, the supreme court is gonna squash this because it doesn't me the standards required to regulate speech"

Dude, regulation is regulation. The reason this even got to the Supreme court is that the ESA is trying to get them protected under first amendment and in order for the law to even work the government has to classify the games separately from other medias so that they don't get 1st amendment protections on what can and can't be sold to whom.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5113.guest.html Have fun Dagon.

The loophole is... *dun dun DUUUUUUN* it's unrated The distinction is thus: You can get away with showing T&A and other naughty bits in movies because they're non-interactive, and thus parents don't think as much about it. Also they have a long cultural history as an art form so most people think that if the movie is ok-good any nudity is done for the sake of art. Comparatively, games as an artform are in their youth and interactive, so parents are more uptight about this stuff. Also it doesn't help that usually when nudity is in a game, it's not done with any sort of maturity and thus it comes off as even less appropriate. May I ask dagon, why do you think this law is a GOOD idea?

Chains can sell "unrated" movies because of a loophole that doesn't make it obscene. Also, while you don't make a distinction between games and movies, the law and public already does, and public perception drives more stuff than actual law business wise.

I think the biggest problem people seem to be missing is that it doesn't matter what DOES happen, only what the population think is happening

http://kotaku.com/5678229/world-of-warcraf...talised-in-game Blizzard being awesome when realizing they screwed up and got corrected by a fan.

I hope this is less criminal & douchebaggy than it sounds! basically he asked where I get games, I told him gamestop mainly. He kept saying walmart didn't have em (they do) and finally I pointed him at steam

Complete rundown for tomorrow: http://kotaku.com/5678354/all-you-need-to-...s-supreme-court

I feel happy and... evil at the same time. I have introduced my room mate to where to find computer games etc.

Actually, no, they're targeted at the 16-21 age bracket (the largest gaming bracket).

Ok, WMD's vs the 9/11. Plus the fact that they found 0 evidence of any factories of said weapons... even though they told people in the lead up to the war that Satellite images definitely showed the several locations of WMD factories.

Problem is that I think since people have come out and admitted that the bush administration outright lied about certain things in order to convince people that the iraq war was a necessity, people have started to think EVERYONE is lying to make themselves look good.

About the only notable thing today is that I went out and wandered around the frats and sorority houses behind my building seeing some people who seemed to have to little on in the way of clothes for a 45 degree night.

Either this or a fight through the courts. Personally I don't think they'd even try to pretty it up, it'd just be a censored black sheet with it's, and, then, civilian, and terrorist not blocked out.

nor does anything you or I say in general.

Well, they put the boobs back in Witcher and a lot of the sex with the patches. And your unwillingness to read stuff invalidates any argument you make.