[AWB]Dems prep ground for 2014 Electoral Defeat

[Lonestar]

HC, I would also vote for Cuccinelli under this scenario:

[DinoDoc]

HC, I would also vote for Cuccinelli under this scenario:

I would vote for him in a Presidential election under that scenario.

[Hauldren Collider]

Wait. Link me to that article, please, ASAP.

[Hauldren Collider]

The thing about Cucinelli is that while some of his social views are a little nasty, he himself has been a very fair attorney general, and pays very close attention to the letter of the law. He has certainly been political but has always ruled on the side of what laws actually say. Also, he has a few soft spots that might be surprising to the Republicans-are-demons crowd, like backing leniency for nonviolent felons and working to exonerate falsely accused criminals as well as supporting things that prevent sexual assault.

[Lonestar]

Wait. Link me to that article, please, ASAP.

It was on /r/nova. I don't know what article it is.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Dems looking to prep ground for 2014 youth vote

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...ames-to-minors

Dem lawmaker introduces bill to ban sales of violent video games to minors
By Brendan Sasso and Pete Kasperowicz - 01/17/13 12:45 PM ET


Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) introduced a bill this week that would ban the sale of violent video games to minors.

The Supreme Court struck down a similar California law in 2011, ruling that the restriction violated the constitutional right to free speech.

Matheson's Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act, H.R. 287, would make it illegal for anyone to ship, distribute, sell or rent a video game that does not bear a label from the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) on the age-appropriateness of the game.


The ESRB, an industry self-regulatory group, already assigns age-based labels to video games, ranging from "C" for early childhood, "E" for everyone, "T" for teen, "M" for mature, and "AO" for adults only, but the system is entirely voluntary.

It is currently up to retailers to decide whether to sell violent or sexually explicit games to minors.

Matheson's bill would make it illegal to sell or rent video games with a rating of "adults only" to anyone under 18, or video games rated "mature" to anyone under 17.

The measure would also require retailers to display information from the Federal Trade Commission about the ESRB's content-rating system in a "clear and conspicuous location."

In the wake of last month's mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school, a number of lawmakers have expressed concern about the influence of violent video games on young people.

On Wednesday, President Obama called on Congress to appropriate money to study whether video games contribute to real-world violence.

In the 2011 decision striking down the California law, the Supreme Court concluded that video games are protected under the First Amendment.

“Like the protected books, plays and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas — and even social messages,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the court's opinion.

He said that California's argument that it could restrict speech directed at children is "unprecedented and mistaken."

"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm ... but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed," Scalia wrote.

[Hauldren Collider]

It's blatantly unconstitutional.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Annnd....What isn't that the Dems spearhead?

[Hauldren Collider]

Point taken. I'm unconcerned though. It will be struck down by any competent federal judge the instant it is challenged.

[snoopy369]

That is incredibly silly. What major game does _not_ sport the ESRB rating? What harm is this ameliorating?

[Hauldren Collider]

Self-published games. Games for cell phones. Lots of games on Steam.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Not only is it silly it is unenforceable. The point isn't just the ratings its the ability to sell games to clients as follows;

Matheson's bill would make it illegal to sell or rent video games with a rating of "adults only" to anyone under 18, or video games rated "mature" to anyone under 17.

Given the amount of content that is downloaded this is clearly bat ****e crazy. I applaud the dems for proudly displaying their nanny state totalitarian impulses at every turn.

[snoopy369]

Self-published games. Games for cell phones. Lots of games on Steam.

That can't be their target. Those sound like small businesses, which are the Dem's bread and butter, isn't it?

[giblets]

Isn't Matheson a Mormon from Utah? I'm not shocked that he hates freedom.

[kentonio]

That is incredibly silly. What major game does _not_ sport the ESRB rating? What harm is this ameliorating?

Absolutely none. It's a constant source of amazement to the european games industry that the US companies bother to fight this stupid ****.

Not only is it silly it is unenforceable. The point isn't just the ratings its the ability to sell games to clients as follows;

Given the amount of content that is downloaded this is clearly bat ****e crazy. I applaud the dems for proudly displaying their nanny state totalitarian impulses at every turn.

Many sales are still retail, and this kind of enforcement can stop those. For online sales it usually requires a credit card or suchlike anyway, and you can simply add an age verification system. If a kid steals his parents credit card, and lies on the age verification then that's for the parents to resolve. In the UK we already have age laws, and it simply provides a common sense level of parental support. If a parent wants to go buy their kids the latest Saw DVD or Manhunt game then they can do so, however the kid can't just walk into a shop and buy them themselves.

I've never understood the constitutional argument on this one. Children are prevented from doing all sorts of things that adults are not, yet suddenly it's unconstitutional to prevent them from buying certain media? Can kids can walk into a shop and buy porn?