People think US could never ban violent games to adults. Their Wrong. In Brown VS EMA, a chilling effect would have happened if the justices in the supreme court decided to vote for California and allow the bill. The bill would have used the Obscenity Clause to choose what games CA cannot sell to kids. The clause allows them to fine retailers that try to sell a game that "lacks serious scientific, educational, and literary value". Since the Fines were absurdly high, the retailers, once fined, would not know what games they could sell ahead of time. The judges in CA, once offended by a game, would not say it has those above values. It's only a matter of time till they fine a store for selling a game they find offensive, and that would cause them to stop carrying violent games because they would not be able to afford the fines. The bill was spreading to other states too.
Why am I mentioning brown vs EMA?
Well back in 2009, an extreme pro-family group, the eagle forum put up an Amicus brief for the case, for the justices to read. This article shows that they did this, and it's filled with BS, but that bs is so old, I won't try to debunk it. What is really bad, is what was in that amicus brief.
It's long been taken down, they don't want people to know how much BS was in the Amicus Brief, and that they were trying to Hijack the Supreme court with Hoaxes and Lies. I read the thing a long time ago, and it contained the claim Eric Harris Said Doom Will Become Reality (A Hoax Disproven by the FBI : debunked here), the claim that doom made Micheal Carneal shoot better in real Life (Debunked Below), and the Claim that violent games are being used to break down the inhibition to kill in the Military (Debunked Here). There were other claims but I don't remember what they were...
Here is my debunking of the Micheal Carneal BS claim that he trained on doom and became a better shooter:
"This is one of the biggest BS claims going out there right now. That
Micheal Carneal learned how to aim just from Playing Doom without training at a range. There are
tons of problems with this. First of all, doom at the time lacked
vertical aiming. A random number generator determined how high your
bullet went. You have no control over how high you shoot at all. Explain
how carneal hit 3 of his targets in the head then? He couldn’t have. He
fired 8 individual shots with semiautomatic pistols that don’t fire
multiple rounds when you hold the trigger down, and hit 8 kids in the
head or chest. Doom trains you to hold down the mouse button down, your
gun in the game will fire multiple times. All of the guns do. Unlike
anything but full auto guns in real life. After killing all the enemies
in the current room you let go and rinse and repeat in the next room,
etc. If Carneal trained on Doom, he would fire one round while holding
down the real guns trigger and no more shots would fire (because his gun was not full auto), and would not
be able to hit all 8 targets at all. He MUST have trained at a range. "
You can see the bogus claims are a problem. They're being cited now in Supreme Court cases by Wackjobs. This is practically Perjury. Don't try to tell me Eagle Forum did not know these lies were lies. I don't buy that for a second. They have been running their mouth attacking games by saying they have "Decapitation of Prostitutes", "Pushing people into Running Saws" and "Sodomizing People with Broomsticks" for years. NO games have these features. NONE. They just spew their nonsense, ad-infinitum.
People like this NEED to be punished... NO ONE but me knew their Amicus Brief had so much BS claims in it. Someone should have read the thing and attempted to contact the SCOTUS to try to get these fuckers punished for lying to them. I just want the gaming industry to know these anti-gaming groups do more than whine about violent games. They try to sway supreme court cases with fake evidence like this. It needs to be stopped. Someone should be required to read amicus brief's by groups like this and punish them if they put lies and hoaxes into them. They are NOT trustworthy.
Showing posts with label Brown VS EMA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brown VS EMA. Show all posts
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Thursday, November 14, 2013
MA tries to start another violent game Witchhunt!!!
Well it seems the idiots attacking violent games never stop, do they? On the heels of the idiotic study into so called violent games "effects" on kids set up by Senator Jay Rockefeller, We have my state trying to start the same old nonsense again. A politician in MA has decided that it would be a good
idea to start a biased study to study the effect of games on kids again.... Right after MA stalled their bill aiming to restrict violent games so they could not be bought by adults. These "studies" popping up everywhere get to me. Because just like all of the other game attacking studies, these
are bound to be biased, and engineered to show a certain result. A lot of other studies are funded by the Center for Successful parenting, a group that has this in their mission statement "We aim to motivate leaders of <insert tons of industries here> to change culture so violence is not shown to
children" basically meaning "ban violent games", because changing the culture of violence can only done by removing the violence.
The current studies by Rockefeller and this idiot in MA are troubling. The Rockefeller study, has language in it's text that tells that the studies can find whatever results they want, because it asks if the violent games have any "new" effects on kids. After the brief but stupid moral panic
surrounding child molestation and it's nonexistent link to violent game playing, spurred by that
Preacher Boykin and Ralph Nader, I wondered if they could use the vague language in the study to find that violent game playing leads to child molestation and pedophilia. To see what the Study in MA does I looked at the text of the study closely...
I got the text from this source:
"That a special commission is hereby established for the purposes of making an investigation and study relative to video games as a form of media and as a training tool. Within that context, the commission will focus upon video games that allow the player to simulate severe battery or killing (“killing games”). The commission will study, investigate, and provide conclusions regarding: (i) the social benefits, impacts and implications of video games in general and killing games in particular, comparing the impact on youth with the impact on adults; (ii) the use of video games as military training devices, educational devices, and other training applications; (iii) how video games compare to other forms of media in terms of their ability to recreate a realistic experience, to desensitize the consumer, to train the consumer to accept certain ideas, and to teach the player new skills or capabilities; (iv) the addictive quality of video games; (v) any connection, including any exposure t or imitation of behaviors exhibited in video games, between killing games and actual violence, including rampage killings that have taken place since 1990; (vi) the reasoning and conclusions drawn in the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, as well as other freedom of speech considerations relative to the regulation of video games, in light of the conclusions drawn by the commission pursuant to (i)-(v); and (vii) the anticipated cost of any proposals to regulate video games. The commission members will play or
observe killing games directly during the course of their investigation."
So this study wants to see if games are an effective training tool. We've been told BS in the newspapers from the hack psychologists that violent games are being used in the military to break down the inhibition to kill. But this blog, written by a military trained
soldier debunks the whole thing. I quote:
"I'm not aware of any military unit that uses video games to break down the inhibition to kill. In fact, this breakdown really only occurs in one place:
Boot camp.
Boot camp doesn't even specifically concentrate on the inhibition to kill. Rather, they follow the CIA training manual for brainwashing almost point by point, in order to instill in recruits 'instant and willing obedience to lawful orders' - that is what they do. The assumption, of course, is
that these orders may be to kill; But they could be to drag a wounded child to safety, or set up a bunker in 100 degree weather, or pull night watch after being up for a 36-hour convoy.
The inhibition to kill can only be broken down by, wait for it . . . killing.
When we were parked on the outskirts of Fallujah and watched as night fell and the Iraqis came out onto the streets, even though our orders were much more liberal than the current Rules of Engagement, there was still hesitation. And this after our convoy had turned around after taking fire at the front.
When we got ambushed, it was actually unfortunate that my extensive game-playing hadn't prepared me at all for the sheer confusion, excitement, fear and horror of those moments.
If you think America's Army is anything but a half-decent game and a lame recruitment tool, you've never run an obstacle course, or been 'quarterdecked'
by a DI.
If you think Halo can help you learn how to shoot, you've never tried to get ten in the black from 500 yards with the piece-of-shit M16A2, with your elbows getting ground by sand trapped in your cammies and the sun causing sweat on your forehead which drips into your eyes.
Video games, or things resembling games, are being used in some areas of the military.
During training ops higher ups often pit virtual countries against each other, but these are basically pushing pieces, simulating battles and using the troops to set up comm architectures and run test flights.
Some first-person-shooters are used by infantry troops to plan out tactics - but these are mostly for higher-level planners; Games will never, ever take the place of constant, demanding, mind-numbing repetition. Proper execution of maneuvers rely on muscle memory; Drill, in boot camp,
forms the introduction to this doctrine.
Rainbow Six may let you breach and clear, but this doesn't translate to the motions or related actions: Which direction do you break? What targets are you responsible for? Who can declare a room 'all clear'? Did you check your overhead?
Flight simulators seem like video games, though I'm sure those responsible for both maintaining and operating them see them more as necessary steps to save billions of dollars worth of equipment from inexperienced hands.
If you want to know how to make a person prone to suggestion to kill, look here.
If anyone would like my breakdown of how boot camp uses the steps for Interrogation of Resistant Sources, just let me know.
The only way, then, I would even consider the argument that violent media makes for violent children is if it could be proven that those children who have been violent were denied any sort of balancing social forces. That is, if you took a child and locked him in a room
and forced violent images day in and day out and brought them to the level of an infant and replaced their language with one of your own devising and had them progress their violence on increasingly complex organisms -- THEN, and only then, would I be willing to entertain that the media was
a factor. And even then, it was not the cause. The cause was you, the sick fuck that provided no guidance other than a violent outlet.
That's how fascists work. They replace free social exchange with their ideas, they re-form language to their own ends ("Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself . . . "), they make natural human sexuality taboo, they declare the War on Some Drugs, they attempt to regulate and control every aspect of human growth and exploration. They embrace stagnation of society and the mind."
The fact that the studies author is bringing this nonsense claim up to the Government is proof that the the government is trying to ban violent games again, IMHO. It must be stopped before it gets to the 90 day phase (see below), or we could have a MA ban on violent games to adults. Not to kids.
"The commission shall consist of: the Governor or a designee, who shall chair the commission; a member of the general public appointed by the Governor; 3 members of the Senate, chosen by the Senate President, 1 of which is a member of the minority party; 3 members of the House of Representatives that are chosen by the Speaker, 1 of which is a member of
the minority party; 1 constitutional lawyer who specializes in freedom of speech; the Massachusetts Attorney General or a designee; 2 psychologists or psychiatrists, at least one of whom is a mental health professional specializing in addiction; the Secretary of Education or a designee who is an educator; a member of the military who engages in military training; a representative of the video game industry; and a representative of the law enforcement community."
At least one of the people involved has a bias against violent games if I am right. They mention "a member of the military who specializes in military training". This fits one of the Hack Psychologist to a tee. Another Hack Psychologist could be in it too if I am right, "1 constitutional lawyer who specializes in freedom of speech" sounds a lot like a retired anti-game activist everyone
in the community hates to me. They also mention how they need to study the impact of the proposed regulation on free speech, probably as a cheap way to see how they can make a constitutional law that causes violent games to not get in the hands of adults, such as the Oklahoma tax on 1% of all property every time someone in OK played, stored, bought and otherwise consumed violent games.
They also want to study how violent games have caused mass killings like columbine (I assume). Whats to stop them from not believing the nonsense spread by the idiots in the government, the media, and unknown parties that says violent games influenced Harris/Klebold/
Lanza, etc? Such things include the Doom will become reality hoax and similar "tidbits of information" that seem to make it look like mass killers played violent games but this info is badly written at the least, and is outright lies at the worse.
"Legislative appointments shall be made not later than 30 days after the effective date of this resolve. The chairperson shall meet with the full commission not later than 90 days after the effective date of this resolve. Members shall not receive compensation for their services but may receive reimbursement for the reasonable expenses incurred in carrying out their responsibilities as members of the commission. Upon appropriation of sufficient funds, the commission shall engage professional "advisors as needed to accomplish its purposes.
"Not later than 270 days after the effective date of this resolve, the commission shall report to the general court the result of its investigation and study and its recommendations, if any, together with drafts of legislation necessary to carry its recommendations into effect by filing the same with the clerk of the House of Representatives. "
We have 90 days to stop this, gamers. I want every gamer in MA to write their Representatives, using this message:
"Dear Representitive.
I am your constituent, and I am alarmed by the study our senate has started dealing with video game violence and the whole idea that the effects on kids and how violent games are a training tool for the military needs to be studied. For years studies like this have been done and many are methodologically flawed, using cheap ways to say violent games lead to violent behavior or aggression, such as subjecting the violent game playing kids to electroshock therapy. It's very important to note that any evidence that violent games cause real life crimes has to be doubted. There are many hoaxes going around and media fabrications that make it seem like violent games cause real life violence. If you do a google.com search for the "doom will become reality hoax" you will find a blog debunking a
claim that was used to "prove" eric Harris was influenced by the video game Doom while shooting up the school. This claim is a hoax, a fake website said "doom will become reality" and the FBI proved the site was not Eric Harris's real site. Also many claims are spreading that violent games break down the inhibition to kill. These are false claims spread by 2 anti-gaming activists in the 90's and the below linked site debunks them totally. The site is a blog ran by a Soldier in IRAQ, telling how violent games could never break down the inhibition to kill, and only Boot Camp obedience training does this.....
http://designsynthesis.blogspot.com/2005/03/training-our-kids-to-kill.html
I find it disgusting that the government would spend millions of tax dollar money on a bill that would
have restricted violent games to minors so adults could not buy them. There is no reason to study
the false connections between violent games and Real life killings, all invented by the media and anti-gaming groups. The hoax mentioned above was used as "evidence" against the industry in an Anti-Gaming Group's Amicus Brief. This group is from the Midwest, they are called the Eagle Forum, and they are pro-religious zealots who think violent games should be banned to adults and gamers should all be dealt with somehow. They were trying to fool the Justices in the SCOTUS to think this evidence is real and not a hoax. One of the people championing the break down to kill "theory" is a zealot former lawyer who once said on the gamepolitics forums that all gamers need to get the Death Penalty. If you plan to study these things, you must be sure NOT to be swayed by these types. For they tried to sway the EMA vs BROWN Case and others..... I just don't think this study is a good thing because it looks like people like these kinds of people are on the group conducting the study.
I don't like the idea of fake evidence being used to sway any people to believe this nonsense is real.
A study like this is almost impossible to be Not swayed by people like this. I am against
it for this reason, and I hope you are too."
Send this message to your Representatives, gamers. Maybe we can get them to stop this now... If it doesn't work, I urge people to resend it over and over again, till they stop the study. Flood their Inboxes over and over again, till their network slows down, if they
fail to listen. It's important to stop nonsense like this.
idea to start a biased study to study the effect of games on kids again.... Right after MA stalled their bill aiming to restrict violent games so they could not be bought by adults. These "studies" popping up everywhere get to me. Because just like all of the other game attacking studies, these
are bound to be biased, and engineered to show a certain result. A lot of other studies are funded by the Center for Successful parenting, a group that has this in their mission statement "We aim to motivate leaders of <insert tons of industries here> to change culture so violence is not shown to
children" basically meaning "ban violent games", because changing the culture of violence can only done by removing the violence.
The current studies by Rockefeller and this idiot in MA are troubling. The Rockefeller study, has language in it's text that tells that the studies can find whatever results they want, because it asks if the violent games have any "new" effects on kids. After the brief but stupid moral panic
surrounding child molestation and it's nonexistent link to violent game playing, spurred by that
Preacher Boykin and Ralph Nader, I wondered if they could use the vague language in the study to find that violent game playing leads to child molestation and pedophilia. To see what the Study in MA does I looked at the text of the study closely...
I got the text from this source:
"That a special commission is hereby established for the purposes of making an investigation and study relative to video games as a form of media and as a training tool. Within that context, the commission will focus upon video games that allow the player to simulate severe battery or killing (“killing games”). The commission will study, investigate, and provide conclusions regarding: (i) the social benefits, impacts and implications of video games in general and killing games in particular, comparing the impact on youth with the impact on adults; (ii) the use of video games as military training devices, educational devices, and other training applications; (iii) how video games compare to other forms of media in terms of their ability to recreate a realistic experience, to desensitize the consumer, to train the consumer to accept certain ideas, and to teach the player new skills or capabilities; (iv) the addictive quality of video games; (v) any connection, including any exposure t or imitation of behaviors exhibited in video games, between killing games and actual violence, including rampage killings that have taken place since 1990; (vi) the reasoning and conclusions drawn in the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, as well as other freedom of speech considerations relative to the regulation of video games, in light of the conclusions drawn by the commission pursuant to (i)-(v); and (vii) the anticipated cost of any proposals to regulate video games. The commission members will play or
observe killing games directly during the course of their investigation."
So this study wants to see if games are an effective training tool. We've been told BS in the newspapers from the hack psychologists that violent games are being used in the military to break down the inhibition to kill. But this blog, written by a military trained
soldier debunks the whole thing. I quote:
"I'm not aware of any military unit that uses video games to break down the inhibition to kill. In fact, this breakdown really only occurs in one place:
Boot camp.
Boot camp doesn't even specifically concentrate on the inhibition to kill. Rather, they follow the CIA training manual for brainwashing almost point by point, in order to instill in recruits 'instant and willing obedience to lawful orders' - that is what they do. The assumption, of course, is
that these orders may be to kill; But they could be to drag a wounded child to safety, or set up a bunker in 100 degree weather, or pull night watch after being up for a 36-hour convoy.
The inhibition to kill can only be broken down by, wait for it . . . killing.
When we were parked on the outskirts of Fallujah and watched as night fell and the Iraqis came out onto the streets, even though our orders were much more liberal than the current Rules of Engagement, there was still hesitation. And this after our convoy had turned around after taking fire at the front.
When we got ambushed, it was actually unfortunate that my extensive game-playing hadn't prepared me at all for the sheer confusion, excitement, fear and horror of those moments.
If you think America's Army is anything but a half-decent game and a lame recruitment tool, you've never run an obstacle course, or been 'quarterdecked'
by a DI.
If you think Halo can help you learn how to shoot, you've never tried to get ten in the black from 500 yards with the piece-of-shit M16A2, with your elbows getting ground by sand trapped in your cammies and the sun causing sweat on your forehead which drips into your eyes.
Video games, or things resembling games, are being used in some areas of the military.
During training ops higher ups often pit virtual countries against each other, but these are basically pushing pieces, simulating battles and using the troops to set up comm architectures and run test flights.
Some first-person-shooters are used by infantry troops to plan out tactics - but these are mostly for higher-level planners; Games will never, ever take the place of constant, demanding, mind-numbing repetition. Proper execution of maneuvers rely on muscle memory; Drill, in boot camp,
forms the introduction to this doctrine.
Rainbow Six may let you breach and clear, but this doesn't translate to the motions or related actions: Which direction do you break? What targets are you responsible for? Who can declare a room 'all clear'? Did you check your overhead?
Flight simulators seem like video games, though I'm sure those responsible for both maintaining and operating them see them more as necessary steps to save billions of dollars worth of equipment from inexperienced hands.
If you want to know how to make a person prone to suggestion to kill, look here.
If anyone would like my breakdown of how boot camp uses the steps for Interrogation of Resistant Sources, just let me know.
The only way, then, I would even consider the argument that violent media makes for violent children is if it could be proven that those children who have been violent were denied any sort of balancing social forces. That is, if you took a child and locked him in a room
and forced violent images day in and day out and brought them to the level of an infant and replaced their language with one of your own devising and had them progress their violence on increasingly complex organisms -- THEN, and only then, would I be willing to entertain that the media was
a factor. And even then, it was not the cause. The cause was you, the sick fuck that provided no guidance other than a violent outlet.
That's how fascists work. They replace free social exchange with their ideas, they re-form language to their own ends ("Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself . . . "), they make natural human sexuality taboo, they declare the War on Some Drugs, they attempt to regulate and control every aspect of human growth and exploration. They embrace stagnation of society and the mind."
The fact that the studies author is bringing this nonsense claim up to the Government is proof that the the government is trying to ban violent games again, IMHO. It must be stopped before it gets to the 90 day phase (see below), or we could have a MA ban on violent games to adults. Not to kids.
"The commission shall consist of: the Governor or a designee, who shall chair the commission; a member of the general public appointed by the Governor; 3 members of the Senate, chosen by the Senate President, 1 of which is a member of the minority party; 3 members of the House of Representatives that are chosen by the Speaker, 1 of which is a member of
the minority party; 1 constitutional lawyer who specializes in freedom of speech; the Massachusetts Attorney General or a designee; 2 psychologists or psychiatrists, at least one of whom is a mental health professional specializing in addiction; the Secretary of Education or a designee who is an educator; a member of the military who engages in military training; a representative of the video game industry; and a representative of the law enforcement community."
At least one of the people involved has a bias against violent games if I am right. They mention "a member of the military who specializes in military training". This fits one of the Hack Psychologist to a tee. Another Hack Psychologist could be in it too if I am right, "1 constitutional lawyer who specializes in freedom of speech" sounds a lot like a retired anti-game activist everyone
in the community hates to me. They also mention how they need to study the impact of the proposed regulation on free speech, probably as a cheap way to see how they can make a constitutional law that causes violent games to not get in the hands of adults, such as the Oklahoma tax on 1% of all property every time someone in OK played, stored, bought and otherwise consumed violent games.
They also want to study how violent games have caused mass killings like columbine (I assume). Whats to stop them from not believing the nonsense spread by the idiots in the government, the media, and unknown parties that says violent games influenced Harris/Klebold/
Lanza, etc? Such things include the Doom will become reality hoax and similar "tidbits of information" that seem to make it look like mass killers played violent games but this info is badly written at the least, and is outright lies at the worse.
"Legislative appointments shall be made not later than 30 days after the effective date of this resolve. The chairperson shall meet with the full commission not later than 90 days after the effective date of this resolve. Members shall not receive compensation for their services but may receive reimbursement for the reasonable expenses incurred in carrying out their responsibilities as members of the commission. Upon appropriation of sufficient funds, the commission shall engage professional "advisors as needed to accomplish its purposes.
"Not later than 270 days after the effective date of this resolve, the commission shall report to the general court the result of its investigation and study and its recommendations, if any, together with drafts of legislation necessary to carry its recommendations into effect by filing the same with the clerk of the House of Representatives. "
We have 90 days to stop this, gamers. I want every gamer in MA to write their Representatives, using this message:
"Dear Representitive.
I am your constituent, and I am alarmed by the study our senate has started dealing with video game violence and the whole idea that the effects on kids and how violent games are a training tool for the military needs to be studied. For years studies like this have been done and many are methodologically flawed, using cheap ways to say violent games lead to violent behavior or aggression, such as subjecting the violent game playing kids to electroshock therapy. It's very important to note that any evidence that violent games cause real life crimes has to be doubted. There are many hoaxes going around and media fabrications that make it seem like violent games cause real life violence. If you do a google.com search for the "doom will become reality hoax" you will find a blog debunking a
claim that was used to "prove" eric Harris was influenced by the video game Doom while shooting up the school. This claim is a hoax, a fake website said "doom will become reality" and the FBI proved the site was not Eric Harris's real site. Also many claims are spreading that violent games break down the inhibition to kill. These are false claims spread by 2 anti-gaming activists in the 90's and the below linked site debunks them totally. The site is a blog ran by a Soldier in IRAQ, telling how violent games could never break down the inhibition to kill, and only Boot Camp obedience training does this.....
http://designsynthesis.blogspot.com/2005/03/training-our-kids-to-kill.html
I find it disgusting that the government would spend millions of tax dollar money on a bill that would
have restricted violent games to minors so adults could not buy them. There is no reason to study
the false connections between violent games and Real life killings, all invented by the media and anti-gaming groups. The hoax mentioned above was used as "evidence" against the industry in an Anti-Gaming Group's Amicus Brief. This group is from the Midwest, they are called the Eagle Forum, and they are pro-religious zealots who think violent games should be banned to adults and gamers should all be dealt with somehow. They were trying to fool the Justices in the SCOTUS to think this evidence is real and not a hoax. One of the people championing the break down to kill "theory" is a zealot former lawyer who once said on the gamepolitics forums that all gamers need to get the Death Penalty. If you plan to study these things, you must be sure NOT to be swayed by these types. For they tried to sway the EMA vs BROWN Case and others..... I just don't think this study is a good thing because it looks like people like these kinds of people are on the group conducting the study.
I don't like the idea of fake evidence being used to sway any people to believe this nonsense is real.
A study like this is almost impossible to be Not swayed by people like this. I am against
it for this reason, and I hope you are too."
Send this message to your Representatives, gamers. Maybe we can get them to stop this now... If it doesn't work, I urge people to resend it over and over again, till they stop the study. Flood their Inboxes over and over again, till their network slows down, if they
fail to listen. It's important to stop nonsense like this.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Take Action! Tell your senator NOT to support S. 134!!!
After browsing GamePolitics.com today, I came across this Entertainment Consumers Association Alert regarding the new Video Game Research bill championed by Senator Rockefeller, another blind attempt to research the nonexistent connection between violent games and "harm to children" or "violence in children".... This Bill is a direct threat to our freedoms. I urge anyone who is a gamer to send your Senator a message through the "action alert" link at the bottom of the article to talk to your senator to tell them NOT to support this bill. You can find the Article Here
However, the message ECA is sending does not give the Senators the complete picture. Noticeably missing are the fact that the "link" between Call of Duty and Sandy Hook is a media fabrication, and that groups like the Brown VS EMA Hijackers are probably going to try to sway the CDC or whoever is doing this research into believing utter hoaxes to prove their claims. IF this research is as biased and fraudulent as previous research (a topic I will do a youtube video on soon), then this research is in Danger of being completely fabricated. I urge gamers to use the below message instead. It goes into this problem and the fact the Call of Duty thing is a bogus media fraud.
"Senator Rockefeller has introduced S. 134, the “Violent Content Research Act of 2013.” It calls for a study by the National Academy of Sciences into the connection between video games and violence. We know the answer to that question, because studies have already concluded, including federally funded studies, there is no connection.
• While video game sales have increased globally, violent crime has decreased according to the FBI’s own statistics,
• Countries whose video game spending per capita is more than the United States do not see the level of violence - especially gun violence - that we do.
Those two facts alone show there’s no connection between the two.
Here are more reasons this legislation will achieve little:
• Researchers on both sides of the subject agree that you can’t study violence, only aggression. So there is no way to really come up with answers to the questions posed.
• The charge already has the taint of bias, as the Senator has said he personally believes that there is a connection. Now, no study connected to his worldview will be free of this.
• The CDC has had questionable practices in the past when it comes to studies and their conclusions. They have ignored their own data in past studies and have done so regarding past video game studies.
* No Matter how Questionable the practices of the CDC are there are always groups trying to sway studies and laws relating to Violence in video games. In 2006, during EMA vs Brown, a group from the Midwest (The Eagle Forum) sent in an Amicus Brief that cites known hoaxes such as "Doom Will Become Reality", a phrase supposedly said on Eric Harris's AOL Site, as proof Harris was influenced by Doom only. Only problem is that the site was a fake site according to the FBI. I have severe concerns that a study like this will be hijacked by such groups presenting hoaxes as evidence to sway the CDC. It will tip the Balance forwards the CDC, Severely Biasing the Study.
• No matter the outcome, at least one side will not agree with the conclusions drawn by the study.
• HHS, the FTC and the FCC have been included in this legislation; they have no role in this study and will likely see this as a way to expand their authority, politicizing the issue even more.
• The recent shootings that have occurred have not been by children. More recent such incidents have been gentlemen in their 60s or older.
• An investigation showed there is little evidence recent shooters played video games, and that the claim that they were was a fabrication by the media, especially the sandy hook reports linking Adam Lanza
to the Game "Call of Duty". All of these reports are based on a Tabloid article that did NOT prove that Adam lanza Played Csll of duty, just said his families plumber thought he might have. The Media all cited this non-proof as proof that he did play call of duty, all at once, making up many ideas, that he lived in a basement, that he trained on the game, etc. The Media is known for making up such claims and many fraudulent statements from them about violence in video games go unchecked... The "Doom Will become Reality" hoax listed above was used by the media to demean Doom and similar Games after Columbine.
• This legislation squarely focuses on video games, not including other media children are exposed to.
• There are numerous positive outcomes created by video game play, all of which are ignored by Congress.
• This legislation was proposed without talking to leading experts in the field.
• The legislation ignores past studies, which show that there is no causation between video games and violence, as well as reports by the FBI and the Secret Service that conclude the same thing.
• Congress is ignoring the studies have already been done. Why are we to believe that any conclusion other than what Senator Rockefeller wants will end this subject once and for all?
This study is a waste of taxpayer dollars and will not solve the issue of mass shootings in our country. It is a distraction from finding out the real causes and solutions.
It is within your power to guide this conversation responsibly and not simply blame entertainment. I ask that you represent me, your constituent, by doing so. If you have any questions on this or other similar issues please contact Jennifer Mercurio, the Entertainment Consumers Association’s Vice President and General Counsel, at jenn@theeca.com.
Thank you for your time and consideration."
However, the message ECA is sending does not give the Senators the complete picture. Noticeably missing are the fact that the "link" between Call of Duty and Sandy Hook is a media fabrication, and that groups like the Brown VS EMA Hijackers are probably going to try to sway the CDC or whoever is doing this research into believing utter hoaxes to prove their claims. IF this research is as biased and fraudulent as previous research (a topic I will do a youtube video on soon), then this research is in Danger of being completely fabricated. I urge gamers to use the below message instead. It goes into this problem and the fact the Call of Duty thing is a bogus media fraud.
"Senator Rockefeller has introduced S. 134, the “Violent Content Research Act of 2013.” It calls for a study by the National Academy of Sciences into the connection between video games and violence. We know the answer to that question, because studies have already concluded, including federally funded studies, there is no connection.
• While video game sales have increased globally, violent crime has decreased according to the FBI’s own statistics,
• Countries whose video game spending per capita is more than the United States do not see the level of violence - especially gun violence - that we do.
Those two facts alone show there’s no connection between the two.
Here are more reasons this legislation will achieve little:
• Researchers on both sides of the subject agree that you can’t study violence, only aggression. So there is no way to really come up with answers to the questions posed.
• The charge already has the taint of bias, as the Senator has said he personally believes that there is a connection. Now, no study connected to his worldview will be free of this.
• The CDC has had questionable practices in the past when it comes to studies and their conclusions. They have ignored their own data in past studies and have done so regarding past video game studies.
* No Matter how Questionable the practices of the CDC are there are always groups trying to sway studies and laws relating to Violence in video games. In 2006, during EMA vs Brown, a group from the Midwest (The Eagle Forum) sent in an Amicus Brief that cites known hoaxes such as "Doom Will Become Reality", a phrase supposedly said on Eric Harris's AOL Site, as proof Harris was influenced by Doom only. Only problem is that the site was a fake site according to the FBI. I have severe concerns that a study like this will be hijacked by such groups presenting hoaxes as evidence to sway the CDC. It will tip the Balance forwards the CDC, Severely Biasing the Study.
• No matter the outcome, at least one side will not agree with the conclusions drawn by the study.
• HHS, the FTC and the FCC have been included in this legislation; they have no role in this study and will likely see this as a way to expand their authority, politicizing the issue even more.
• The recent shootings that have occurred have not been by children. More recent such incidents have been gentlemen in their 60s or older.
• An investigation showed there is little evidence recent shooters played video games, and that the claim that they were was a fabrication by the media, especially the sandy hook reports linking Adam Lanza
to the Game "Call of Duty". All of these reports are based on a Tabloid article that did NOT prove that Adam lanza Played Csll of duty, just said his families plumber thought he might have. The Media all cited this non-proof as proof that he did play call of duty, all at once, making up many ideas, that he lived in a basement, that he trained on the game, etc. The Media is known for making up such claims and many fraudulent statements from them about violence in video games go unchecked... The "Doom Will become Reality" hoax listed above was used by the media to demean Doom and similar Games after Columbine.
• This legislation squarely focuses on video games, not including other media children are exposed to.
• There are numerous positive outcomes created by video game play, all of which are ignored by Congress.
• This legislation was proposed without talking to leading experts in the field.
• The legislation ignores past studies, which show that there is no causation between video games and violence, as well as reports by the FBI and the Secret Service that conclude the same thing.
• Congress is ignoring the studies have already been done. Why are we to believe that any conclusion other than what Senator Rockefeller wants will end this subject once and for all?
This study is a waste of taxpayer dollars and will not solve the issue of mass shootings in our country. It is a distraction from finding out the real causes and solutions.
It is within your power to guide this conversation responsibly and not simply blame entertainment. I ask that you represent me, your constituent, by doing so. If you have any questions on this or other similar issues please contact Jennifer Mercurio, the Entertainment Consumers Association’s Vice President and General Counsel, at jenn@theeca.com.
Thank you for your time and consideration."
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Is The Government Covering up Lies the Media Spread about Doom after Columbine?
One of the ideas that I keep bringing up to back this up is that articles making up utter bullshit about Doom, and how these news pages linking this have been mysteriously taken down!!! Basically there are 3 articles that claim Harris modified doom to train for the school shooting on. But the modified version of doom was proven by me to be completely false... But since then the sites hosting the 3 articles online have been Mysteriously shutting down......
Here is a site that used to host an article, the second on of the 3 with the most faked features supposedly found in the article. Now the site is no longer there:
Now, here is what is left of a site that used to host the times news article that started this whole thing. It's now mysteriously shut down..... Is this evidence of a coverup?
Going into the features of the modified version of doom, I have proven it could not have possibly been real... Doom simply could NOT do the features the described in 1999. The weird thing is that the more you look into the claims you start seeing tons and tons of little inconsistencies that make it seem like a bunch of people were spreading anti-doom rhetoric (tm). According to the articles, the hate site tracking group found the fake doom on his Website. But the following article claims the person mentioned from the group found it on his computer..... What the hell... Are they in on the possible conspiracy to try to get games banned using fake evidence to cause an outcry and government intervention? I don't know but... It's very suspicious....
Notice how the top article's image says the the modified version of doom on was found on his PC. And it didn't even say it was a modified version, it wasn't even made clear. Below it says that the same group found it on his website. Which is true? Which is false? Are they both false like I suspect? I don't know... But it's very suspicious that nonsense like this, was cited in over 100 different "attack sites" all bringing it up as proof that doom either was a factor or a cause for the school shooting, even thought the version of doom mentioned is not real. Later on, these articles claims were used against violent games in Brown VS EMA in a right wing anti-violent games group's Amicus brief, filled with other major lies such as video games break down the inhibition to kill (debunked here), that Cornell learned how to shoot from doom, and doom only and other similar things (debunked here). and then later the sites hosting the articles, long after I started my debunking on them, started mysteriously going down. I think there is a coverup going on but I can't prove it. It's just very suspicious to me.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Massachussets Apparently trying to Ban Violent Games, to adults as well.....
So after going to gamepolitics.com last night, I looked in the
legislation tab to see if any state had drafted Anti-Violent Game
Legislation. Surprisingly, My own state of Massachusetts, was among
those states, that drafted draconian anti-video game bills within the
last 6 years. Back in 2007, HB 1423 was drafted, it would apparently
"restrict violent games to minors", but that's not all... No No...
That's not all..
The Bill is so ridiculously draconian that is scares me just as much as the Bill that California Drafted that got Defeated for Unconstitutionality in Brown VS EMA. Like that bill, this one uses the greatly subjective obscenity clause to determine what games would be restricted.... Basically, if the game is offensive to the public, and the judges of the content find it lacks scientific, educational, or literary value, it would be restricted. The problem is if a game is so offensive that it offends the Judges (it seems any violent game with gore would do this, hell even guns in a game offended a co-worker years ago, Doom none the less), they would be so offended that they would say it lacks those values anyway, and therefore would use it against the game and then restrict it to minors.
The real issue is not this but the fact that it uses the restrict word in the wrong way, or in an unclear way. Restrict means to " to confine or keep within certain often specified limits or selected bounds" according to an online dictionary, so if you use this definition, the bill makes it illegal to sell games to adults now.... Even worse, the bill fails to even mention the punishments, who will judge the games, punishment (if any) for false judgement based on faked evidence or incorrect evidence or abuse of the judging process. Even if these issues are my imagination, it still uses a subjective system to determine what games are restricted and what ones aren't. How would the stores know which ones not to sell.... Like Brown VS EMA, they might end up taking all games off the shelves to prevent losses or lawsuits coming from violations of the law. So therefore this bill would create an effective ban because since stores don't know what games get restricted till to late, they then end up having to take ALL violent games off the shelves to prevent damages, especially if the bill is abused..
Text of the Bill in question for people wanting to read it In case it gets deleted later for any reason. (a lot of the stuff like this gets deleted suddenly, as of late anyway, such as the Brown vs EMA Amicus Brief, etc)
As of now the Bill is in the House Committee being stalled, but who knows for how long? This could come to bite my state and my freedom of choices in the Ass later. I am an Adult! I have the right to choose WHAT GAMES I Buy. I don't want this bill to backfire and make retailers get rid of violent games in fear like it could. And since I use online retailers mostly now, who knows how it will effect online retailers in MA, or the gaming industry here. This could be, in theory, Disastrous for gaming in my state.....
This is MY STATE we are talking about here... We don't do shit like this, uber save the children conservative nonsense here. Not till one of the hack psychologists crazy unproven theories invaded the minds of people like our Mayor, did this nonsense start, with the Banning of GTA ads on subway systems that don't have kids in them anyway (from my experience, their too dangerous for kids)... IF our Mayor ends up allowing this to pass, I will fight it tooth and nail with regular emails to ALL the Representatives and Senators in my State.... I won't let this go quietly and with out opportunity. I will start a campaign to get people to write EVERYONE in office in MA to oppose this and hopefully it will flood their Mailboxes so bad that they find it unconstitutional.
As of now, the bill is in committee, and who knows if it will be taken out for a vote anytime soon. But still I urge ALL Gamers in Massachusetts to email the Rep's about this. This is danger waiting to happen for Gaming here... Don't let this pass, gamers, spread the message, email your Rep's, send the message below to them to make them see that this is WRONG!!!
Text to email (please us this, don't write your own)
"As your constituent and as an avid Video Game fan, and also as an anti-censorship person, I oppose HB 1423 due to it's vague use of the phrase "restricting" in it's text, and other issues. I know this is an old bill, but according to gamepolitics.com, it's still being worked on, and hasn't completely died, according to them.It claims to be a bill that will restrict Sales of certain violent video games to adults, but when I didgoogle searches for similar bills in other states, only a few were restrict to adults type bills. Many were ills to restrict violent games to children... Since I oppose any form of Censorship, I immediately looked at the Bill's text, and compared it to others in other states. When looking up the definition of Restrict online, It seems this bill is actually designed to Restrict sales of violent games to adults, as in a ban of violent games to adults only. Since the bill's text is so vague, there is no part that clearly states "stores must not sell games to minors", so which way is it? Banning games from being sold to minors, or to Adults.... Based on other bills, it looks like the writer of such a bill Purposely left it out to abuse it for such a purpose, to make it illegal for stores to even sell games to adults.... Thus killing the video game industry in this state.
Other issues I have with it, are how it uses an incredibly biased Obscenity clause that states that if thegame is lacks scientific, literary, or educational value for minors, it is harmful to minors and can't besold, but since the the people who are deciding this (which it does not state), could simply use theirstandards of what offends them, they can simply say that the game offends them, so therefore it lacks those standards, and ban it to adults or children.... I feel Indecency and obscenity clauses are to vague and subjective to use as a test of what should be restricted, banned or both... It's too easy for someone else to abuse this, and IMHO, that's why the author wrote this bill to get an "effective ban" in MA passed... I just wanted to share my concerns..."
The Bill is so ridiculously draconian that is scares me just as much as the Bill that California Drafted that got Defeated for Unconstitutionality in Brown VS EMA. Like that bill, this one uses the greatly subjective obscenity clause to determine what games would be restricted.... Basically, if the game is offensive to the public, and the judges of the content find it lacks scientific, educational, or literary value, it would be restricted. The problem is if a game is so offensive that it offends the Judges (it seems any violent game with gore would do this, hell even guns in a game offended a co-worker years ago, Doom none the less), they would be so offended that they would say it lacks those values anyway, and therefore would use it against the game and then restrict it to minors.
The real issue is not this but the fact that it uses the restrict word in the wrong way, or in an unclear way. Restrict means to " to confine or keep within certain often specified limits or selected bounds" according to an online dictionary, so if you use this definition, the bill makes it illegal to sell games to adults now.... Even worse, the bill fails to even mention the punishments, who will judge the games, punishment (if any) for false judgement based on faked evidence or incorrect evidence or abuse of the judging process. Even if these issues are my imagination, it still uses a subjective system to determine what games are restricted and what ones aren't. How would the stores know which ones not to sell.... Like Brown VS EMA, they might end up taking all games off the shelves to prevent losses or lawsuits coming from violations of the law. So therefore this bill would create an effective ban because since stores don't know what games get restricted till to late, they then end up having to take ALL violent games off the shelves to prevent damages, especially if the bill is abused..
Text of the Bill in question for people wanting to read it In case it gets deleted later for any reason. (a lot of the stuff like this gets deleted suddenly, as of late anyway, such as the Brown vs EMA Amicus Brief, etc)
As of now the Bill is in the House Committee being stalled, but who knows for how long? This could come to bite my state and my freedom of choices in the Ass later. I am an Adult! I have the right to choose WHAT GAMES I Buy. I don't want this bill to backfire and make retailers get rid of violent games in fear like it could. And since I use online retailers mostly now, who knows how it will effect online retailers in MA, or the gaming industry here. This could be, in theory, Disastrous for gaming in my state.....
This is MY STATE we are talking about here... We don't do shit like this, uber save the children conservative nonsense here. Not till one of the hack psychologists crazy unproven theories invaded the minds of people like our Mayor, did this nonsense start, with the Banning of GTA ads on subway systems that don't have kids in them anyway (from my experience, their too dangerous for kids)... IF our Mayor ends up allowing this to pass, I will fight it tooth and nail with regular emails to ALL the Representatives and Senators in my State.... I won't let this go quietly and with out opportunity. I will start a campaign to get people to write EVERYONE in office in MA to oppose this and hopefully it will flood their Mailboxes so bad that they find it unconstitutional.
As of now, the bill is in committee, and who knows if it will be taken out for a vote anytime soon. But still I urge ALL Gamers in Massachusetts to email the Rep's about this. This is danger waiting to happen for Gaming here... Don't let this pass, gamers, spread the message, email your Rep's, send the message below to them to make them see that this is WRONG!!!
Text to email (please us this, don't write your own)
"As your constituent and as an avid Video Game fan, and also as an anti-censorship person, I oppose HB 1423 due to it's vague use of the phrase "restricting" in it's text, and other issues. I know this is an old bill, but according to gamepolitics.com, it's still being worked on, and hasn't completely died, according to them.It claims to be a bill that will restrict Sales of certain violent video games to adults, but when I didgoogle searches for similar bills in other states, only a few were restrict to adults type bills. Many were ills to restrict violent games to children... Since I oppose any form of Censorship, I immediately looked at the Bill's text, and compared it to others in other states. When looking up the definition of Restrict online, It seems this bill is actually designed to Restrict sales of violent games to adults, as in a ban of violent games to adults only. Since the bill's text is so vague, there is no part that clearly states "stores must not sell games to minors", so which way is it? Banning games from being sold to minors, or to Adults.... Based on other bills, it looks like the writer of such a bill Purposely left it out to abuse it for such a purpose, to make it illegal for stores to even sell games to adults.... Thus killing the video game industry in this state.
Other issues I have with it, are how it uses an incredibly biased Obscenity clause that states that if thegame is lacks scientific, literary, or educational value for minors, it is harmful to minors and can't besold, but since the the people who are deciding this (which it does not state), could simply use theirstandards of what offends them, they can simply say that the game offends them, so therefore it lacks those standards, and ban it to adults or children.... I feel Indecency and obscenity clauses are to vague and subjective to use as a test of what should be restricted, banned or both... It's too easy for someone else to abuse this, and IMHO, that's why the author wrote this bill to get an "effective ban" in MA passed... I just wanted to share my concerns..."
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
My Opinions on Brown vs EMA (Old Blog Repost)
Reading ‘Faux’ news I found this charming little video (won’t give
them the pleasure of the extra views by linking it here) discussing the
Supreme court’s deliberations on whether Violent Games should be
Regulated or Banned. Number 1: Violent games are obviously not for
kids, especially the super violent GTA type things that I don’t think
should be allowed to be sold to kids anyway, just so that 1) they don’t
get their hands on it 2) I hear many complaints that the
companies who make it are marketing to kids but the complainers arent
realizing that violent games ARENT legally stopped from getting into
the hands of kids. The rating system set up by ESRB
is constantly mistaken as being a government enforced one… It isn’t .
It’s a guideline for parents… that would be read by them to make the
decision on whether the game should be bought for their kids or not.
It’s bad system because the retailers don’t enforce it enough or at all.
That is the real problem, violent games legally should be restricted to people 18+ and older. Some are just downright sick. I mean, I enjoy them because of their challenge and their humor or their story, but not their violence. I played through Fallout 3, being shocked by It’s gore levels, but they werent the reason why I played it. I was there for living in the games world doing quests and leveling up my character. If the government would step in and actually restrict violent games (any of them really, I don’t care anymore if mildly violent games (jedi knight/morrowind/etc) were restricted to adults) then half of the problems would be gone, if they can think up a very well designed and worded law to determine BY content ONLY what games should be restricted…. The current rule is a copy of the Obscenity definition which is insanely vague. Here is the rule they are deliberating on…
“it defines violent games as works that depict “killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being,” in a way that’s offensive, appeals to morbid interests, and otherwise lacks artistic merit. “
1) This is so vague. The games affected by the first part “killing,maiming,dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being” in a way that’s offensive, appeals to morbid interests and otherwise lacks artistic merit, would effect 95% of the mildly violent RPG/shooter games… because there is no definition of the ‘offensive’ , ‘morbid interests’ or ‘artist merit’. There isn’t a violent game out there that someone would judge ‘offensive’ and/or have ‘no artistic merit’. Who judges this? It doesn’t say. I can list 8 games that would fit this definition and only 1 out of 8 are super violent and have “maiming/dismembering/or sexual assaulting” in them! (Captolized)
Doom (mildly violent)
Quake (ditto)
Quake 2 (same thing)
Unreal (Same thing)
Serious Sam (Moderatly violent)
Jedi Knight (Mildly violent, no gore – It’s star wars for god’s sake!)
BULLETSTORM (Uber Violent)
Morrowind (Mildy violent – no gore , just small bloodpools – no guns / just swords / spells)
If this deliberation is about a complete all-ages ban (even to adults!), then it can be twisted around to ban all 8 games, because mild killing with slight blood, like seen in most of these games could be twisted to violate the statute! Only bulletstorm fits MOST catagories of violence, killing, dismembering,maiming, and no game features sexually assaulting… But none of the games have to fit all to be banned to adults in this case… Just fit one…. So it targets ALL violent games, even mild ones… Or could.
It’s too vague… One of the ladies in the Faux Newsvideo whined about all violent games fitting all catagories mentioned, like all or most violent games allow the player to Kill, Maim, Dismember AND sexually assault (rape – something she seems to think players can do in most games, she doesn’t realize that NO games have a controllable rape scene since custers revenge back in 1989, with worse graphics than Mario brothers !), and are disgusting and lack artistic value, and then made some nonsense lie about 2 year olds she knows who play them…. If this is really an All-Age ban and not some restriction to adults… Then we have a problem, especially if the justices think like her.
That is the real problem, violent games legally should be restricted to people 18+ and older. Some are just downright sick. I mean, I enjoy them because of their challenge and their humor or their story, but not their violence. I played through Fallout 3, being shocked by It’s gore levels, but they werent the reason why I played it. I was there for living in the games world doing quests and leveling up my character. If the government would step in and actually restrict violent games (any of them really, I don’t care anymore if mildly violent games (jedi knight/morrowind/etc) were restricted to adults) then half of the problems would be gone, if they can think up a very well designed and worded law to determine BY content ONLY what games should be restricted…. The current rule is a copy of the Obscenity definition which is insanely vague. Here is the rule they are deliberating on…
“it defines violent games as works that depict “killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being,” in a way that’s offensive, appeals to morbid interests, and otherwise lacks artistic merit. “
1) This is so vague. The games affected by the first part “killing,maiming,dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being” in a way that’s offensive, appeals to morbid interests and otherwise lacks artistic merit, would effect 95% of the mildly violent RPG/shooter games… because there is no definition of the ‘offensive’ , ‘morbid interests’ or ‘artist merit’. There isn’t a violent game out there that someone would judge ‘offensive’ and/or have ‘no artistic merit’. Who judges this? It doesn’t say. I can list 8 games that would fit this definition and only 1 out of 8 are super violent and have “maiming/dismembering/or sexual assaulting” in them! (Captolized)
Doom (mildly violent)
Quake (ditto)
Quake 2 (same thing)
Unreal (Same thing)
Serious Sam (Moderatly violent)
Jedi Knight (Mildly violent, no gore – It’s star wars for god’s sake!)
BULLETSTORM (Uber Violent)
Morrowind (Mildy violent – no gore , just small bloodpools – no guns / just swords / spells)
If this deliberation is about a complete all-ages ban (even to adults!), then it can be twisted around to ban all 8 games, because mild killing with slight blood, like seen in most of these games could be twisted to violate the statute! Only bulletstorm fits MOST catagories of violence, killing, dismembering,maiming, and no game features sexually assaulting… But none of the games have to fit all to be banned to adults in this case… Just fit one…. So it targets ALL violent games, even mild ones… Or could.
It’s too vague… One of the ladies in the Faux Newsvideo whined about all violent games fitting all catagories mentioned, like all or most violent games allow the player to Kill, Maim, Dismember AND sexually assault (rape – something she seems to think players can do in most games, she doesn’t realize that NO games have a controllable rape scene since custers revenge back in 1989, with worse graphics than Mario brothers !), and are disgusting and lack artistic value, and then made some nonsense lie about 2 year olds she knows who play them…. If this is really an All-Age ban and not some restriction to adults… Then we have a problem, especially if the justices think like her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)