|
|
Post by Admin Tyler on Dec 7, 2005 18:06:29 GMT -5
The Safe Games Act (2008)
Sponsor(s): Owen Williams (R-CA) and Warren Harding (R-OH)
The Senate of the United States America hereby:
1) Provides that a business establishment who knowingly sells, rents, or permits to be sold any violent or sexually explicit video game to any minor, will be fined a fee of no less than $20,000.
2) Provides that a family member's purchase of a violent or sexually explicit video game for another family member who is a minor does not constitute a violation of this provision.
3) Holds the determination of violent and/or sexually explicit video games in accord with the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) system for rating video games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Tyler on Dec 7, 2005 18:07:00 GMT -5
"This legislation is fully open for debate now."
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexander Shackleton on Dec 7, 2005 18:33:08 GMT -5
I wasn't aware that Congress was permitted to pass laws abridging the freedom of speech, Mr. President.
Where in the Constitution are we given the authority to pass this atrocious legislation? What is the basis? How can we outsource the job of determining the freedom of speech to a private organization?
I rise in strong opposition to this legislation.
I yield.
|
|
|
|
Post by Owen Williams on Dec 8, 2005 4:15:02 GMT -5
Mr. President I thank the Senator from New York for his ammusing hyperbole.
The fact is Mr. President this bill simply increases the penalties for software retailers that allow inappropriate material into the hands of minors. It creates no new classes of censorship and certainly doesn't make life harder for game designers. At the same time, it also allows for parents to purchase censored games for their children, if they feel they are mature and intelligent enough to seperate fact from fiction, thereby taking some of the responsibility for the material our children watch away from censors, and back where it should be, in the hands of parents.
Mr. President I heartily support this bill and urge it's speedy passage!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody Shea on Dec 8, 2005 10:26:35 GMT -5
"Mr. President?"
"The Gentleman from North Carolina."
"Mr. President, this piece of legislation is a clear sign of how ignorant lawmakers are to what these 'videogames' actually represent. They are THE new medium of entertainment, art, and expression. We cannot make a legal disconnect between them and popular movies and music simply because some of my ESTEEMED colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to pander to those seeking a 'Mommy Knows Best' form of government."
"Mr. President, this bill is a waste of the taxpayers time and resources. Let us assume for the moment that it passes here, passes in the House, and that President Warder decides to forsake his pro-business platform to sign it into law. I can assure you that numerous voices will ring out to challenge it in the courts, and they will succeed. Now, I for one think we should save ourselves, the Supreme Court, and the American people a lot of time by dropping this ridiculous measure here for good."
"Now, don't get me wrong. I agree that some things are inappropriate for children, and that the sale of graphically violent or sexual videogames should be restricted. I feel the same way about excessively violent or pornographic movies. However, there are already restrictions in place for videogames, unlike movies or music. What we have here, Mr. President, isn't a failure on the part of the industry to self-regulate, but a failure by parents groups to educate their members."
"Numerous studies of shown that of the number of videogames developed a very small percentage are rated at the 'M' or mature level. Of that number the majority are purchased by those in the acceptable age group. I ask you then, who does this legislation target? Are we seriously going to arrest and fine the clerk at Wal-Mart who sells one teenager an 'M' rated videogame while his colleague who sells a 10 year-old a DVD of 'Scarface' or 'The Godfather' goes about his business?"
"Neither situation should be acceptable, but I strongly believe it isn't the duty of big government to decide it. Both situations call for educated parents to step in and intervene on their children's purchases. What this legislation feels like to me, is a despicable attack on the working class retail sales clerks who'll be held CRIMINALLY liable because of the decision of their employer to carry the software, and the failure of parents groups to make sure their members know which games are appropriate for their children."
"I yield the balance of my time."
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexander Shackleton on Dec 8, 2005 18:38:00 GMT -5
Hear Hear Mr. President!
Mr. President,
The gentleman from California has refused to name the Constitutional authorization for this bill! Mr. President, this confirms our assertion! There is none!
The gentleman from California would have us believe that we should support this bill because it does not contain "new classes of censorship." Mr. President, I oppose censorship in all its forms, in all its classes, past, present, future, old, new, middle-aged!
I will not yield to those who seek to undermine our Constitution. I will yield the floor. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Uxbridge on Dec 9, 2005 2:06:26 GMT -5
Dear fellow members. This law on the face of it flyies in the face of Free Speach. What evever happend with Mom and Dad rasing there kids vs have the Govermet rase them. My God! what next? Do we not have better things to debate then this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Tyler on Dec 9, 2005 20:36:40 GMT -5
*nasally voice on C-SPAN2*
"Voting has now been opened up on the floor of the Senate for SR-26: The Safe Games Act."
Indicate your vote by a "yea" or "no" post in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody Shea on Dec 9, 2005 20:59:43 GMT -5
"Nay"
|
|
|
|
Post by Owen Williams on Dec 9, 2005 22:53:35 GMT -5
Yea
OOC: Couldn't we have made the motion to vote ourselves? Both Shea and Shackleton have good points that could've very easily been fixed by some simple amendments but now we won't have the chance...
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Tyler on Dec 10, 2005 0:06:38 GMT -5
OOC: As I mentioned already somewhere else, Erik wanted me to put them up. If you guys want, keep debating.  |
|
|
|
Post by Alexander Shackleton on Dec 10, 2005 0:26:06 GMT -5
Nay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Warder on Dec 10, 2005 4:18:16 GMT -5
OOC: I didn't know you all wanted to debate more. Apologies. If so, simply disregard the calling of the question and continue to debate.  I thought debate had mostly died down, so I wanted to move to step two to keep things fluid. E. |
|
|
|
Post by warrenharding on Dec 10, 2005 10:07:00 GMT -5
Aye, unless we are going to continue debate
|
|
|
|
Post by Uxbridge on Dec 10, 2005 19:54:56 GMT -5
no
Once voting has started Roberts Rules no more debating
|
|
I thought debate had mostly died down, so I wanted to move to step two to keep things fluid.