PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Law. Appeal. Law. Surprised?
October 13th 2000, 16:52 CEST by andy

Bad news, Americans! Once again your precious "freedom of speech", aka the freedom to do whatever the hell you want by calling it freedom of speech and then getting upset when someone stops you, is being trampled on...



In August, we covered the news that a law was to be introduced in Indianapolis, banning under-18s from playing violent arcade games without parental supervision, and requiring games with graphic violence or strong sexual content to be kept at least 10 feet away from non-violent machines. The law was to be challenged by two industry groups, the American Amusement Machine Association and the Amusement and Music Operators Association.

Not surprisingly, the gathered masses of gamers who have a thorough understanding of the law, the US constitution, and are in no way biased one way or the other, generally felt the new rules were a bad idea.

Some of our American friends even put forward the quaint notion that the industry appeal would be successful: "I personally won't be surprised when this law is given the boot ... First Amendment bars things like this from happening." (Chris Johnson) "It will be up to the courts to decide if this falls under freedom of speech, but if so, they are clearly prohibiting the free exercise of it and this stupid ass dumbshit law will be overturned." (Sgt Hulka)

Oops, they did it again. (Played with your heart, got lost in the game, etc.)

Two months later, the appeal has been heard and the law can stay. It will be enforced as of today, Friday, as reported in this MSNBC story. Care to know the judge's thoughts on the subject? Well okay then. Brace yourselves, this is gonna hurt...

In the ruling, U.S. District Judge David Hamilton said, "It would be an odd conception of the First Amendment ... that would allow a state to prevent a boy from purchasing a magazine containing pictures of topless women in provocative poses, but give that same boy a constitutional right to train to become a sniper at the local arcade without his parentsí permission."

This is your soapbox. Use it wisely!

C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Law. Appeal. Law. Surprised?

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "blah"
2000-10-13 16:54:37
first!!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#2 by "Dopey"
2000-10-13 16:59:47
bg@msn.com
3rd!
#3 by "Nick"
2000-10-13 17:15:14
nick@noblehost.com
<b>#Main Post</b> "andy" wrote...
<QUOTE>give that same boy a constitutional right to train to become a sniper </QUOTE>

WTF?  Train as a sniper?  What kind of arcades to they have in Indy?  This seems to just be another case of someone misjudging (grossly) the video game industry.  Sheesh.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#4 by "Reb Pizer"
2000-10-13 17:16:49
reb@entdepot.com http://www.entdepot.com
So close...

The whole "train to become a sniper" crap is pretty thin, but in general, I don't see what's so wrong here.  

We've regulated what's in our movies and on our television sets for years.  Maybe not always for the better, but the idea of controlling access to violent video games is certainly in line with this thinking.  

The counter-argument, I s'pose, is that this is indirect censorship, because if violent video games become unprofitable, fewer people are going to make them, much like what's happened in the movie industry.  However, people still make the porn, because you can make a buck, several billion in fact, selling it for home-consumption.

So as I said, regulating what can be shown in a publicly-accessible space is nothing we haven't seen before.  If they start putting limits on what we can find in Software, Etc. (Incidentally, how come no one complains about the lack of porn software in EB, Software, Etc., etc.?  That's essentially zoning laws as censorship?)
to bring into our homes, that's something else.  I know SOF was restricted in Canada, but I half remember some city (Indianapolis?) doing so as well.  This is wrong, because it takes no consideration for parental password-regulated violence blocking capability.  

If that becomes more widespread, then we've got something to worry about IN THEORY, but we all know damn well that the people who really want this sort of thing (myself included), will be able to download it.  

Or shit, if you can compress a feature-length movie to a resonable size, why not a game?
Once file-sharing is involved, all bets are off anyway.

reb
#5 by "asspennies"
2000-10-13 17:28:54
asspennies@coredump.org http://www.coredump.org/
One would argue that "Sniper Scope" isn't training to be a sniper any more than "Operation Wolf" was training to be a soldier or "Mario Brothers" was training to be a plumber.

It seems to me that it's these politicians and lawyers, not the children, who have trouble disassociating the violence from the gameplay - I know as a kid, I enjoyed all a lot of "violent" arcade games, and it certainly didn't give me any violent tendencies.

I admit, it's just one person's experience, but I'd like to think I was more normal than not.  We'll see...<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#6 by "Avatar[D!]"
2000-10-13 17:29:59
avatar@captured.com http://www.captured.com/guard
I totally agree with the law, children are best taught sniper tactics playing counter-strike and hence should be done on a PC and not some lame "arcade". [We certainly know boys [or girls] would never see porn on the 'Net right [or their father's playboy, etc.]

This is all a classic case of (and pardon my language but...)

We the politicians of America lacking the balls to address the tough issues of class division, racism, hate, bigotry and poverty in the country will instead focus on symptoms of the larger problem, pretending the disease does not exist. Instead of addressing the issues that cause people to be pushed to the brink because they can't take it anymore, we will lay the blame at the doorstop of irrelevant and inanimate objects and ideas that the majority of Americans do not understand and hence will cooperate in. (Can you say the "War on Drugs").

I'm honestly going to admit that I had very violent thoughts in school and I had not played more than pong and pac man a few times.. I learned all about machine guns and grenades from reading books about World War 2, and some movies in the 50s [WW2 of course] and even old syndicated TV shows like the "Rat Patrol".

What is more important is why I had these feelings and why they were preventable. And this addresses what kind of behavior is reinforced or allowed at school and home in terms of hate, aggression towards weakness, differences, minorities, religion, dress/culture etc.. This is not caused by game playing, hell it's not even reinforced by most games.. most games your playing a hero, not a villian. Humanity is quite capable of creating monsters on it's own, TV/Radio, Music and Games are only a mirror reflection of ourselves in some ways. How many video games have the Palestinians played lately, that the cause of the great surge of violence? It surely could have nothing to do with religion, politics and hate now could it?

It's time Americans woke up and realized they stand to throw away their freedom trying to solve a problem whose solution stares at them every morning from their breakfast table.. their children. The next generation that *could* grow up not being taught to hate and be afraid of everything different, that could be taught there is a bright future if they want to reach for it. Start now and maybe generations down the line will not experience the trials and tribulations many of us have had growing up.

You can make a difference and censorship is not going to accomplish that feat.

Avatar[D!]
#7 by "Avatar[D!]"
2000-10-13 17:52:43
avatar@captured.com http://www.captured.com/guard
I just realized I probably made myself sound 50 years old.. hehe not quite. My mother and grandparents (whom I spent most of my teenage years with) liked to watch the older movies and usually preferred westerns or WW2 movies. One of my favorites was "Rat Patrol" which I think was originally in the late 60s/early 70s but shown in syndication through the mid 80s, heck might still be on some cable channel. One of my points here is that TV/Movies has shown bloody violence for *decades*, why would only in the last 5 years suddenly the youth of America go into crazed violence due to these "influences" unless there is significant factor being purposely overlooked.
#8 by "Twitch"
2000-10-13 18:00:47
twitch@gamepig.com http://www.gamepig.com
Well, I just read through the judge's opinion, all 50+ pages of it. First off, what the actual ruling was seems to be getting lost in the shuffle. This opinion was a denial of a preliminary injunction. In other words, it did NOT end the case. The arcade owners sued, and at the outset, asked for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced while the city and the arcade owners argued about its Constitutionality.

So if the arcade owners wish, they can still proceed with the actual challenge, and still get a ruling that the law is unconstitutional. The judge just decided that the law wouldn't be put on hold while it was being argued. Of course, part of the reason for this was that the judge didn't think the challenge looked very strong at this point, so the hand has been tipped. But it's happened before and it will happen again that a preliminary injunction will be denied, but the challenge itself will win, later on down the road.

As far as the legal analysis on denying the injunction, it was fairly cautious. The court said that games could be considered speech, and therefore protected. And even though it was a content-based restriction, a lower standard of review applied because it involved children's access. This is an oversimplification, but feel free to read the 50 pages yourself if you want all the nuances :-)

Anyway, the point is to not read too much into this decision. This was NOT a final ruling on the law's constitutionality, just a denial of an injunction. After reading the opinion, though, I think it's probably a safe bet that the law would be upheld by the court after a full trial. And probably by an appellate court as well....
#9 by "Chet"
2000-10-13 18:03:27
chet@oldmanmurray.com
Wow!  I just checked our freedoms are being trampled everywhere.


Did you know 18 years olds can't buy beer?!!?!?

13 year olds can't go to R rated movies!!!!

15 year olds can't smoke!!!

17 year olds can't buy porn!!!


Placing restrictions on the actions of minors is hardly the loss of freedom Andy makes it out to be.
#10 by "avixe"
2000-10-13 18:29:27
Well, considering that it's *been proven true* that games make kids violent, this story makes perfect sense.

Wait, that hasn't been proven?
#11 by "avixe"
2000-10-13 18:31:16
#9,
We must restrict our children because they're too dumb to know any better.

*sigh*

Restrictions on kids are only successfully made because they can't vote.
#12 by "doormat"
2000-10-13 18:34:46
doormat_mr_c@hotmail.com
Actually, 18yr olds can drink beer ! (in the UK.)
Possibly the weirdest law here is:
age of consent (for sex) - 16.
age you can watch sex at the cinema - 18.. Hmm.. :)
#13 by "deadlock"
2000-10-13 18:51:41
deadlock@eircom.net
#9, Chet -- I think Andy was actually being a little sarcastic about your freedoms being trampled etc.

Personally I think that this kind of law is inevitable everywhere. I also think that censorship is a necessary evil.

deadlock - i'm the kinda guy that'll build you a shed; but sometimes that's not enough, is it ?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#14 by "brennan"
2000-10-13 18:54:24
scottsyoen@home.com
Can Andy POSSIBLY be castigating someone for not understanding U.S. free speech law?  Can this POSSIBLY be happening?  Good christ.

I think the problem with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that it doesn't give Andy and Seth nearly enough opportunity to sue and/or prosecute people.  When people call them names and then hide behind "free speech", I think everyone here just gets furious at the name-callers and wishes they could be thrown in jail or have a bunch of money taken away.  Let Andy sue!

From the descriptions I've read/heard, this law will likely stand up.  Minors don't have many constitutional rights in America, and it's considered within the government's power to limit their access to questionable materials.  And they can still play the games with a parent or guardian's consent.  It doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me, although to be fair there are a LOT of 17-year-olds who could handle it.

-brennan
#15 by "deadlock"
2000-10-13 18:56:32
deadlock@eircom.net
<b>#14</b> "brennan" wrote...
<QUOTE>to be fair there are a LOT of 17-year-olds who could handle it.
</QUOTE>

Yeah, but ratings are generally a catch-all; ie, if a film is rated 15, then basically the censor is assuming that most (if not all) 15 year olds are mature enough to watch it.

deadlock - i'm the kinda guy that'll build you a shed; but sometimes that's not enough, is it ?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#16 by "Andy"
2000-10-13 19:01:37
andy@nospam.planetcrap.com http://www.meejahor.com/
<b>#13</b>, deadlock:
<QUOTE>
<A href="spy-internal:Load/172#9">#9</A>, Chet -- I think Andy was actually being a little sarcastic about your freedoms being trampled etc.
</QUOTE>
Aw, don't spoil it for him! ;-)

Sure, people could talk about the issue, but it's much more fun to watch Chet go on a flamefest. We might actually start selling tickets soon...


Avatar/Twitch - great posts!
#17 by "kitrack"
2000-10-13 19:06:14
jbholdridgeii@vt.edu
On 10/13/2000 at 15:52, Avatar[D!] had <i>something</i>(#7) to say:
<quote>One of my points here is that TV/Movies has shown bloody violence for *decades*, why would only in the last 5 years suddenly the youth of America go into crazed violence due to these "influences" unless there is significant factor being purposely overlooked.</quote>
IIRC, violence has been going *down* recently ...
I don't have the studies to back it up (I've forgotten where they're from, so take this with a grain of salt), but I remember reading that despite the news media's stories, violence amongst youth is at a 20-year (or something like that) low ...
The violence has just gotten a higher profile now.
As an aside, since Andy doesn't seem to understand the American system, the District Courts are not the final level.  We have a supreme court, which is general where constitutional issues are resolved.
After the supreme court ruling, <i>then</i> it would be a story.  Until then, it's not settled.

ugh.  Maybe I'm just talking out of my ass, but I don't think this is that important a story right now.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#18 by "Chet"
2000-10-13 19:11:31
chet@oldmanmurray.com
Andy wanting people to talk about the subject... my post (for the Andy's of the world who can't get sarcasm not being uttered out their toothless pie hole) was being sarcastic - but when you are Ace reporter Andy - and have the wit of corky - you have to make something out of nothing to cover you inability to put two facts together to make a story. But its okay, Andy.  I do feel sorry for you.  Should we hold a charity drive for you for a new computer?  Should I buy you one?  Doesn't hacking TV tuners pay well?
#19 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-10-13 19:11:47
tc10@spam?youtalkintome?st-andrews.ac.uk http://www.fisty.com/~tom/
/me ducks and covers...
#20 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-10-13 19:12:32
tc10@spam?youtalkintome?st-andrews.ac.uk http://www.fisty.com/~tom/
Chet, you make less and less sense with every post you make here.
#21 by "Chet"
2000-10-13 19:18:42
chet@oldmanmurray.com
<B>Tom</b>

Good.  After that last thread - I thought that was the point.  Its not?
#22 by "brennan"
2000-10-13 19:19:34
scottsyoen@home.com
If anything, entertainment is *more* violent now than ever, and as Kittrack noted, the violent crime rates are actually going *down*.  Kind of throws off the whole "violent entertainment=violent people"-causation argument.

And as far as Andy not understanding the American court system - really? :P

-brennan
#23 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-10-13 19:22:01
tc10@spam?youtalkintome?st-andrews.ac.uk http://www.fisty.com/~tom/
<quote>Good. After that last thread - I thought that was the point. Its not?</quote>
I'm sorry, let me think harder about that one - you <i>like</i> to appear incapable of coherent argument and/or discussion? That's somewhat odd, to my way of thinking.
By the by, "its" in your sentence above isn't possessive, so it needs an apostrophe. Just for future reference.
#24 by "Whisp"
2000-10-13 19:23:15
whisp_@hotmail.com
<b>#9</b> "Chet" wrote...
<QUOTE>Wow! I just checked our freedoms are being trampled everywhere.


Did you know 18 years olds can't buy beer?!!?!?

13 year olds can't go to R rated movies!!!!

15 year olds can't smoke!!!

17 year olds can't buy porn!!!


Placing restrictions on the actions of minors is hardly the loss of freedom Andy makes it out to be. </QUOTE>

Yes it is.  These laws are ludicrous.  What is so magic about these numbers?  Why is it that when someone turns 21 they are suddenly responsible enough to drink, or turns 17 and becomes adult enough to watch sexual acts?  These sorts of denials don't protect anyone from much of anything, not if the person doesn't already accept the restrictions as being just.  

-Whisp
#25 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-10-13 19:27:32
tc10@spam?youtalkintome?st-andrews.ac.uk http://www.fisty.com/~tom/
Whisp - a line must be drawn somewhere, and it's safer to draw it on the conservative side. Yes, there are 12 year olds who are perfectly mature enough to be trusted with alcohol - but there are also 25 year olds who aren't.
#26 by "Chet"
2000-10-13 19:29:58
chet@oldmanmurray.com
<B>Tom</B>
Correcting grammer now?  Eh, don't care enough on pc for me to even look over a post - just having fun with Andy until the banners go up - then I won't bother.  I don't feed the writer of the National Enquirer - I won't feed Andy.
#27 by "Stepto"
2000-10-13 19:38:01
Stepto@gamersangst.com http://www.gamersangst.com
Is there any way we can have this law modified so that only people over 60 are allowed to play Derek Smart's games, and even then only in specially marked places where no one can see them play?  

S.
#28 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-10-13 19:39:43
sbauman@cdmag.com http://www.cdmag.com
However overheated the discourse is on this issue, whether violent videogames or sexual explicit content affects people is virtually irrelevant; some people may not want to be forced to be exposed to that type of content while others are fine with it. These two types of people need to coexist.

While you can choose not to go to certain movies, watch certain TV shows or play certain videogames, let's keep in mind arcades are public places with no restrictions on admittance. However, the "attract" mode of most violent arcade games features their violent content. So anyone walking by a Mortal Kombat machine get to watch a guy having his spine ripped from his body whether they want to or not.

Blockbuster probably wouldn't show graphically violent or sexually explicit movies in their stores or rent movies with such content to people below a certain age; why should arcades be any different? An adult can still get that violent or (Blockbuster edited) sexually explicit movie.

But here's the big question, which is the one we all really ask when any law is proposed. Does placing the machines 10 feet away with a curtain, and giving age restricions, inconvenience those who want to play those games that much?

If you're a parent and you're OK with your kid playing Mortal Kombat, then you're being inconvenienced in the sense you can't let the arcade be your baby sitter. You have to join him or her, which might actually be better for your relationship (let your kid kick your ass; they'll feel better).

If you're a parent and you're not OK with your kid playing Mortal Kombat, maybe you're a bit happier he or she can't run off while you're not looking and do something you specifically do not want them to do.

Here's another thought: That "attract" mode may qualify as advertising. If that's the case, it may fall under "commercial speech" as opposed to free speech or expression. If that's the case, it would not be as protected as free expression as that type of speech's laws are designed to protect consumers from deceptive marketing. This is the loophole that allowed the government to do an end-around with that FTC report from a month ago; they focused on marketing, not the products.
#29 by "brennan"
2000-10-13 19:41:10
scottsyoen@home.com
Whisp:

It's like this with a lot of areas of the law, though.  They have to draw a basically arbitrary line, and so it goes in the place that either seems to make sense, or is the least objectionable to the greatest number of people.  Why do you have to be 16 years old in America to drive when there are 15-year-olds who drive a hell of a lot better than some of the 30-year-olds I fight every day?  Well, you gotta draw the line somewhere.  If there's a way around this I wish I knew it.

-brennan
#30 by "Derek Smart"
2000-10-13 19:44:27
dsmart@3000ad.com http://www.3000ad.com
<b>#27</b> "Stepto" wrote...
<QUOTE>Is there any way we can have this law modified so that only people over 60 are allowed to play Derek Smart's games, and even then only in specially marked places where no one can see them play?

S. </QUOTE>

LOL! bastard

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#31 by "None-1a"
2000-10-13 19:48:12
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a/
<b>#10</b> "avixe" wrote...
<QUOTE>Wait, that hasn't been proven? </QUOTE>

Acctauly it has, just depends on who excatly you ask about it, the law makers are just asking for the opinions of people that happen to match up with the general population (it's an election year after all).

The people that are acctauly doing studies are really quite  up in the air about the whole thing. Some say that more violent meda causes more violance, others say it has no effect at all, and a handfull are saying it's the "happy violance" that causes the problem.

Happy violance is any thing where some one dies with no effects, no screams, no punishment, no blood and gore nothing that would say this person really is dead and who ever did it will have to face the punishment for there action in killing the person. The idea is that a kid will not understand that say the bad guy in an old western is really dead simply by him falling on the ground (thus would not connect shooting with killing). The second is that no fear of punishment is show for the killings.

Some things do seam to support this, for example after ww2 and the mass introduction of many families to TV and the 'happy violent' shows the crime rates when up, now that shows are starting to show the violance in a much more graphic way they are going down.

For now age restrictions could be a good solution, however if the happy violance ideas are ture it could mean a return to media where killings stil happen but people don't die.

I've gota write up a sociology paper this weekend so I should be able to provide some links to some of these ideas some time latter on (stupid real classes, I want my art classes back).
 
--
None-1a.

O forget it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#32 by "eddie"
2000-10-13 19:50:01
l0ser_kid@hotmail.com
The thought of all that rampant freedom of choice and individual rights is always upsetting/disturbing to out comrades across the pond.If I lived in a soft glove dictatorship like the UK I too would want to see the state step in and control the arcades, after all think of the children.

Andy,do you have a sore knee from bashing it on the desk underside so often?
#33 by "Brian (BinaryC)"
2000-10-13 19:50:14
binaryc@teamreaction.com http://binaryc.teamreaction.com
Age the government requires you to murder people: 18
Age the government lets you drink: 21

Anyone see a problem here?

I've been playing video games my entire life, war games, puzzle games, shooter games; yet I still refuse to shoot someone.  I have not been trained to be a sniper.  I have no idea how to work a sniper rifle, nor do I want to.  The reason is because my parents told me there is a difference between real life and stories.  They told me that murder is a bad thing (tm).  They told me violence is not good.

If you knocked someone you didn't know down and jumped on top of them, you would probably be arrested; yet people do this all the time in football games.  Young kids are trained to push people over and steal balls from them.
If they want to prevent kids from playing video games, they also need to ban them from football, and hockey, and archery, and hunting, and karate, and boxing, and almost every other past time.

The provocative pose thing is also hilarious, but I'm not even going to touch on that because it's so ingrained into our messed up society that seeing a tit will make me want to shoot my parents.
#34 by "Commie"
2000-10-13 19:50:51
AHHHH!

I'M TRAINING TO BE A BIG YELLOW DOT THAT EATS OTHER WHITE DOTS AND GETS CHASED BY GHOSTS!

Is there a career in this?
#35 by "Ryan Greene"
2000-10-13 20:00:22
This is the link</a> and just in case I butcherd it here it is as well:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/12/1412254&mode=thread
to a story on slashdot tracking crime statistics in the US, and how they have dropped since the release of Doom.
#36 by "kitrack"
2000-10-13 20:03:11
jbholdridgeii@vt.edu
After reading Steve Bauman's post (#28) I had the vision of licensing kids to play violent video games ... I can imagine, a while after this has been in effect, parents petitioning for some license or what not for kids to say, "My Johnny's allowed to play the violent games when I'm not around."  Kinda similiar to driving laws (least in Delaware) that the parent can let the kid drive without them being around, but can revoke at any time ...
Thought?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#37 by "Stepto"
2000-10-13 20:04:29
Stepto@gamersangst.com http://www.gamersangst.com
You know, I swear to all that's holy or not, Derek Smart has some kind of "Somebody said something about me, somewhere on the internet" sixth sense.

Try it out for yourselves.  It's amazing.  Within seconds he shows up.

S.
#38 by "BloodKnight"
2000-10-13 20:05:31
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
Freedom of Speech being trampled?  I think not

Restriction?  Yes


We had these in movies and adult videos, is the industry dying because of this?  No, hell they are doing quite fine.  Kids can play the violent arcades still, just with a parent or guardian next to them.  It isn't censorship, it isn't freedom of speech being stabbed.  You can still play the arcade, just an 'extra step' to do that

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#39 by "dolomite"
2000-10-13 20:20:20
dolo{AT}planetquake[d0t]com http://www.teamevolve.com/
Finally, the reason for any division in government -- so we don't have to live in Indy!

My take on violence is simple.  Real violence is when someone violates you.

True violence is never comitted on a computer or in a movie theater.  If violence was really happening on a computer, the monitor would be broken and the hard drive would be damaged!

How many people gun down movie theater crowds?

<b>I don't know of one case!</b>

While you may believe you are comitting acts against real life opponents over the internet while playing deathmatch, you are in fact, translating your agression into meaningless actions, such as moving a mouse and hitting keys.  While it is a huge waste of energy, sometimes it is better to waste energy than it is to recover it.

What really needs to be done, is that schools need to teach classes about fantasy and reality distinction.

Bring back philosophy and use it as a way to prevent school violence, instead of gawk at the archaic teachings of Aristotle and Plato.

Stop putting them to sleep.

Wake them up!

Use philosophy as a way to prevent the tolleration of <b>any</b> violence, including put downs and cliques.

Anger management for the masses!

Woo hoo!

/d Lost Souls!</b>
#40 by "^mortis^"
2000-10-13 20:21:47
mortis@goddamnindependent.com http://www.goddamnindependent.com
OH MAN, and Dodge Ball made me want to pick up big red balls and THROW THEM AT OTHER PEOPLE!! YES, nail the fat kid...NAIL THE FAT KID!!!!!

yes, YES, and listening to the Cure's 'Killing an Arab' made me join the Army and go fight in Desert Storm...Doug Henning made me yearn for the powers of Pagan Magics...J.J. Walker made me realize that saying "DY-NO-MIIITE" woul dmake black people like me...

the REAL truth is that parents today SUCK ASS. period.  can't control your kid? it's the games fault! daughter a whore? blame barbie! cats and dogs, living together....


^M^
#41 by "Andy"
2000-10-13 20:22:11
andy@nospam.planetcrap.com http://www.meejahor.com/
<b>#35</b>, Ryan Greene:
<QUOTE>
This is the link</A> and just in case I butcherd it here it is as well:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/12/1412254&mode=thread
to a story on slashdot tracking crime statistics in the US, and how they have dropped since the release of Doom.
</QUOTE>
That was a great article. Assuming the figures were right -- and I noticed the statistics being given suddenly changed half way through so I'm not sure -- but it made for some interesting reading.
#42 by "Lucky"
2000-10-13 20:23:16
lucky@planetduke.com
Hey kids!

I read that the US army is licensing a game engine to make their VERY OWN super-3D shoot-'em-up!!

(Go to www.pczone.co.uk, poor-UK-based-game-mag fans! Just guess a login! TIP: try "john", no password needed.)

Um anyway, isn't the prospect of something like uber-racist xenophobe game  Soldier of Fortune being made by people who DO actually train to kill for a living vaguely scary?

Oh and I totally agree with that law about arcade machines. All that time playing Duck Hunt and Operation: Wolf sure as hell made me want to go out and start shooting, uh, ducks and pixels.
#43 by "dolomite"
2000-10-13 20:23:24
dolo{AT}planetquake[d0t]com http://www.teamevolve.com/
Dammit... the last email was supposed to say
/d (going to see) <b>Lost Souls</b>

but the silly "
#44 by "BloodKnight"
2000-10-13 20:26:30
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
<b>Lucky</b> (#42):
<QUOTE>All that time playing Duck Hunt and Operation: Wolf sure as hell made me want to
go out and start shooting, uh, ducks and pixels. </QUOTE>

I used to be afraid of that fucking dog in Duck Hunt!
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#45 by "Ryan Greene"
2000-10-13 20:26:34
Actually, dolomite, I seem to recall some shootings in theatres when "Boys in the Hood" came out, or maybe it was "Colors"... can't recall which it was right now, but people have been shot during films here in the States. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#46 by "Lucky"
2000-10-13 20:30:38
lucky@planetduke.com
Miss Teen Kansas 1986, AKA BloodKnight, said:
<QUOTE>I used to be afraid of that fucking dog in Duck Hunt!</QUOTE>

Too scared to shoot it? :)

I can't even walk through a haunted, zombie-infected house of evil without feeling the urge to shoot everything now; I was corrupted by House of the Dead.
#47 by "BloodKnight"
2000-10-13 20:32:17
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
<b>Lucky</b> (#46):
<QUOTE>Too scared to shoot it? :)
</QUOTE>

No, the dog did something after shooting the ducks and made a horrible noise while at it!
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#48 by "None-1a"
2000-10-13 20:39:53
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a/
<b>#42</b> "Lucky" wrote...
<QUOTE>I read that the US army is licensing a game engine to make their VERY OWN super-3D shoot-'em-up!! </QUOTE>

The armies use for it is a bit different then what people are claming. The army wants to move to a more ordinized battlefield when every person and vehicle is connected to each other. With this they want to being going into infomation wars (where who ever has the most infomation about the other sides troops, there own possition, and the ability to easaly call backup and know where it's at, etc), since none of this stuff acctauly exist yet they need an electronic battlefield to simulate it, that the the real life war games are extreamly expencive (with the governmets cost cuts money that was used for the war games in the past may need to be funneled into creating the electornic battlefield systems).

The clame is the whole idea to train them to kill, which isn't all that effective (the black cut outs of human like figures work much better, as they portray the enemy as not really human).

--
None-1a.

O forget it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#49 by "Lucky"
2000-10-13 20:40:36
lucky@planetduke.com
OK, so . . . holding a mouse IS the same as holding an AK-47? Cool! :)
#50 by "Lucky"
2000-10-13 20:42:16
lucky@planetduke.com
. . . Or maybe the troops will justhave VR headsets and fall down with spasming eyes and migraines. Either way, I f33r them :)
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Law. Appeal. Law. Surprised?

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]