Supreme Court to rule on CA's video game ban

[Vivace]

The more I think about this, the more trouble I have with the editorialization of the whole thing.  The people who always want to determine what others should watch/read/listen to/play are always the people with the worst judgment.  It baffles me that people who rate movies decide that T&A gets an R rating, humping gets NC17, and 110 minutes of mayhem and carnage is PG13.  These are the people who will decide who it is and isn't OK to virtually kill.  I mentioned earlier that the law is worded so that killing Muslims in CoD will be hunky-dory (prevailing community standards).  Medal of Honor ran into trouble when it was announced that one could play as either side--yes, that means the Taliban.  They reworked the game after [absolutely ridiculous] public outcry.  While the uproar was silly, I don't generally mind when the public seeks to influence such things.  I have a big problem when such things are suggested to become law,  and this is exactly the sort of thing that the law will be passing judgment on.  Virtual violence is fine as long as you're on the American side, and unacceptable if you're on the other.  That's bullshit.

Why do you hate your country?

Why should that make any difference in a video game? If I can cover a police officer in grenades and kill children in a video game why draw the line at being a terrorist in a video game? After all, it's just a game, isn't it?

Isn't it?

[Seventh Son]

The more I think about this, the more trouble I have with the editorialization of the whole thing.  The people who always want to determine what others should watch/read/listen to/play are always the people with the worst judgment.  It baffles me that people who rate movies decide that T&A gets an R rating, humping gets NC17, and 110 minutes of mayhem and carnage is PG13.  These are the people who will decide who it is and isn't OK to virtually kill.  I mentioned earlier that the law is worded so that killing Muslims in CoD will be hunky-dory (prevailing community standards).  Medal of Honor ran into trouble when it was announced that one could play as either side--yes, that means the Taliban.  They reworked the game after [absolutely ridiculous] public outcry.  While the uproar was silly, I don't generally mind when the public seeks to influence such things.  I have a big problem when such things are suggested to become law,  and this is exactly the sort of thing that the law will be passing judgment on.  Virtual violence is fine as long as you're on the American side, and unacceptable if you're on the other.  That's bullshit.

Why do you hate your country?

Why should that make any difference in a video game? If I can cover a police officer in grenades and kill children in a video game why draw the line at being a terrorist in a video game? After all, it's just a game, isn't it?

Isn't it?

I think the point is enforcing arbitrary "community" guidelines that are silly. If you're the type of person who plays GTA and suddenly wants to maim a cop solely for that reason, there is something wrong with you and you need help. Leave the people that can play it while realizing it's all fantasy alone.