- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is the place: http://www.eff.org/
How free speech applies is extremely simple:
In the United States all advertising is considered Free Speech and guaranteed in the constitution.
This post or any like it by the same author are not to be considered legal advice and are for entertainment purposes only.
Dom,
I understand what you’re saying, but three things from that article really jump out at me:
1. Game companies point to the industry-imposed ratings system…
The government is suggesting that industries cannot be self-regulated… and considering tobacco I can’t say that they are totally off-base.
2. Some (legislators) want the violence in some games declared obscene.
Ok… so… they are going to define and legislate what is and is not obscenity now.
3. “You can carve out some exceptions to the First Amendment when it is determined that these things we are talking about…have harmful effects to children.
Can anyone scream “Slippery Slope”?!:eek:
Maybe so, but none of that applies to our situation.
They may wish to regulate casinos (I hope to see that coming) and then they will have some sort of control over content – such as rigged games – but they cannot regulate the right to advertise.
These are different things.
I don’t know how games, etc. that are targeted to children can be compared to the gambling industry. The gambling industry targets adults with money.
And if the government ever wants to use that argument about how some minors will inadvertently be drawn into it well the state governments in the US are the biggest promoters and advertisers of gambling there is with their lotteries alone. Pennsylvania just got a bill signed yesterday legalizing slots to help give a break on property taxes. I’m sure there will be advertising involved there and some minors are going to see it. But since it will help politicians get re-elected and not Google or Yahoo make money then it is okay.
Another thing is all of the alcohol/beer advertising. It is inappropriate to market this item to minors, yet how many of them do you think see beer commercials on a daily basis?
I guess the difference is probably the marketing intentions of the products, whether they target minors or not. It’s not the first time though that video games, movies, etc. have been brought up in a election year. And I think this is really not necessary if the games carry labels like the movies.
Originally posted by Dominique
…but none of that applies to our situation.I repectfully dissagree with the esteemed Webmistress from California…
If the government sets precedent by interpreting (and thus defining) what obscenity is, and then they go further by passing laws to enforce that interpritation, that very well could influence our ability to advertise.
After all, the government has shown it has the ability to regulate how advertisers free speech is discemenated. They have kept liquor ads off TV for years. And tobacco? No ads on TV to this date.
I just don’t like to hear the words “carve out” mentioned in the same breath with “free speech”. Advertisers (if self regulation prooves inadequate) may have to be kept from who they can target with their speech (as with tobacco), but let’s be careful they do not restricted the speech itself, based on some “greater good” for society. JMHO…
I don’t know how games, etc. that are targeted to children can be compared to the gambling industry.
Well, a few years ago I would have agreed with you. But the more I see the US Government at work (especially Ashcroft) the more pesemistic I become.
The concept here is precedent. All laws in the future will pull their basis from these early rulings. If we get a bad one (overly broad) then trust me, friends, it will be used against us to serve the politicians in the future.
Int makes excellent points and the nearly the same as I brought up in the referback thread when they took it upon themselves to force a policy change.
Anytime that any entity takes it upon itself to force its will on others; is not a good thing.
More so – even dangerously so; is when they (those in a position of power) make changes that were already decided and (what I thought) were cemented in stone; by all parties involved.
I still am amazed that they found some people to defend their actions.
this is no different. We (in the states) have already made these decisions a very long time ago and it was as wise a choice then, as today. I say leave the parenting to the parents, and feel very strongly so.
I been screaming slippery slope. Just not about this
“but they cannot regulate the right to advertise.”
Of course they can, and they do. I don’t know how you come to this conclusion Dominique but it is flatly wrong. Cigarettes can not be advertised on television. Billboards are regulated most everywhere, and on and on.
Advertising is a form of speech, but not all speech is protected. For example, a prositute can not verbally solicit customers. That’s speech, that’s advertising and that’s illegal.
True, true true, especially Classics.
BUT there is a LAW about each of the examples Classics quotes.
There is NO law about advertising online casinos.
They have tried to pass a law about the legality of playing on online casinos for years – and failed and will continue to fail.
They haven’t even TRIED to pass a law regarding advertising online gambling. There is no law. Any behavior suggestiing there is, is rogue, and mark my words:
One day very soon one of the advertising places is going to sue the US government for harassment, loss of income and all kinds of things, because intimidation without a legal base is ILLEGAL in the United States. And while rights are being trampled on left and right these days, the system is still in place and will work for those who care to use it.
This is merely my opinion and not to be taking as legal advice, since everyone knows my comments are strictly for entertainment.
Originally posted by Dominique
…there is a LAW about each of the examples Classics quotes.There is NO law about advertising online casinos.
Well, Dom Sweetie… that was the entire reason for this post!
I am very concerned about the very first law they DO pass about this delicate and legally untouched subject… from which, all future laws will most likely take their structure. And if Bush wins in November, your best bet is Ashcroft will get something on paper in some jurisdiction.
As far as an advertiser sueing the US Govenment… I really really pray you’re right. That would hopefully have a happy outcome for us, and if that day comes I will gladly take an “I told ya so” from you…
The whole situation is making a mockery of what it means to be a “free country”.
Who is the government to tell me, as an adult and a citizen, what I can and cannot do with MY money? If I want to spend it gambling, then it’s none of the government’s business.
Who is the government to tell me what I can and cannot listen to on the radio? Or watch on television? Or what subjects are okay to play in video games?
For that matter, if I were a woman, and I wanted to exchange sex for money, why should the government be involved?
And if I want to ingest something, be it alcohol, mary jane, hydrocodone, or anything else, then who is the government to tell me not to?
If I own a restaurant in Dallas, TX, I’m not allowed to have a smoking section. Imagine a “free country” where a citizen and a business owner cannot allow a perfectly legal activity to go on underneath his own business’s roof?
And before someone chastises me for lumping online gambling in with a bunch of other sins and nefarious activities, let me point out that I’m just pointing to other activities the government tries to regulate when it has no business getting involved in it.
It’s a shame and a travesty what goes on in America under the guise of protecting the people from themselves. My rights are supposed to stop where my fist end and your nose begins. But right now, it seems like what few rights I have left are dwindling daily.
YOU GO RANDY!
Although…
Originally posted by Randy
Who is the government to tell me, as an adult and a citizen, what I can and cannot do with MY money?Damn straight… As long as we pay our taxes and live responsibly they should STAY OUT of our business…
Who is the government to tell me what I can and cannot listen to on the radio? Or watch on television? Or what subjects are okay to play in video games?
Agreed… Orwell was only off by 20 years…
if I were a woman, and I wanted to exchange sex for money, why should the government be involved?
Well… to the extent that the CDC would be interested. UNregulated prostitution can lead to a rise in STD transmission, which leads to incresed public burdens for tax payers. Also, from my 12 years in retail theft, I can assure you that many many prostitutes are also drug addicts who end up committing other crimes to help bridge the gap between what they earn and what they need.
In short, I can see the Govenment involvement in this issue because it can and does infringe on the rights of others. But I believe that the US Government has a naive approach to the subject.
And if I want to ingest something, be it alcohol, mary jane, hydrocodone, or anything else, then who is the government to tell me not to?
When drunk drivers or drug addicts (or anyone, for that matter)begin to affect others rights, that’s when laws are needed.
Again, I am willing to conceed that the US is probably not addressing the issues the best way possible… I am simply stating why I can understand a reasonable amount of government involvement.
If I own a restaurant …(and)…I’m not allowed to have a smoking section. Imagine a “free country” where a citizen and a business owner cannot allow a perfectly legal activity to go on underneath his own business’s roof?
Whole hearted agreement!!!! And other un-constitutional laws: Manditory Seat Belt Law for adults, and the Manditory Helmet Law for adult motorcycle riders.
My rights are supposed to stop where my fist end and your nose begins. But right now, it seems like what few rights I have left are dwindling daily.
Amen. Laws are to protect me from you and vice versa… NOT to protect me form me… or you from you….
In short, I can see the Govenment involvement in this issue because it can and does infringe on the rights of others. But I believe that the US Government has a naive approach to the subject.
(I can understand government involvement to some extent. But naive is a gentle word for the government’s approach to this issue.)
When drunk drivers or drug addicts (or anyone, for that matter)begin to affect others rights, that’s when laws are needed.
Again, I am willing to conceed that the US is probably not addressing the issues the best way possible… I am simply stating why I can understand a reasonable amount of government involvement.
(And I would contend that people should be held accountable for what they do when they’re under the influence of any kind of drug. i.e. Driving drunk ought to be illegal, because then you’re interfering with other people’s rights to drive on public property. Robbing a bank because you’re high on crack and need more money to keep up your habit is already illegal too.)
(The key word here is Reasonable involvement. We need a reasonable government. What we have is resembling a tyranny more and more every day.)
Originally posted by Randy
…naive is a gentle word for the government’s approach to this issue……The key word here is Reasonable involvement….
Yup, Randy
I do choose my words carefully!!!“Naive” is a bit gentle :p
