Comments on: Illinois ‘violent videos’ ban

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:38:19 +0000

“Violent” games would be defined as those realistically depicting human-on-human violence in which the player kills, injures, or otherwise causes physical harm to another human

Crap. By that definition they should ban football, boxing, hockey, and a host of other “all-american” pastimes.

I don’t care if you’re facist, but at least be consistent.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 19 Dec 2004 20:43:25 +0000

dont forget the liibrarys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ban the video checkout on them too.and games its amazing what my 4 kids use to come home with as kids in the 90s!!!!!!!!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:04:32 +0000

“To me it seems that the US legal system is designed so that the only poor and
homeless go to prison, but these people stay in prison for a long time for minor crimes.”

dude, did you reach this profound conclusion recently? life and law mostly favor the wealthy, anywhere. *surpirse* yeah, its really sad and unfortunate but thats just the reality of living. I have gotten away with sooooo much stuff in the past (knock on wood.) If I told you the things I’ve gotten away with, you wouldn’t believe half of them. Why am I the golden boy? because my dad makes enough money to buy me a car most would envy and he is buddies with the best lawyer in town (who is also very wealthy, naturally.) not only do I get the best lawyer here but he also handles a lot of stuff for free because he is friend of the family.

who looks more suspicious to you? a nicely dressed man driving his porsche to see his friends in an affluent neighborhood or some rough looking poor people in a beat up crap box going to chill with their boys in the ghetto? especially true if said poor people are a minority. we demand of police officers to be fair but cops are just people like you and I, stereotypes exist. even if I can’t slide by the cops, my lawyer can work wonders in the courtroom, another advantage for me. I hope I made my point. am I above the law or is this fair? no and no but neither is life fair. I’m just astounded that this happens, especially because i didn’t do anything to deserve this “advantage” if you want to call it that, yet it follows me. I have it because my family is very fortunate and I am very thankful for that.

back to the ban … I do not favor most things that are banned by the law because I think in a democracy, citizens should have choices not bans. first of, I wouldn’t even call this proposed law a “ban”, its more of a restriction. It is also a restriction that I favor. frankly, I don’t think any one would make a valid case as to why this game should not be restricted. I love San Andreas, great game, but I wouldn’t want to be caught up with some kids that grew up playing it. thats a scary thought! young people are just too impressionable for a game of that nature. violent games should be treated just like alcohol, you need to responsible/old enough to realize that they alter reality. thats a part of why they are so “fun”. I’m sure some will get around this restriction but I don’t see how restricting it would hurt anything.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 04:40:41 +0000

“The probably penalty for violating the bans would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison or a $5,000 fine.”

Why are these penalties always so screwed up?
I don’t think this is a fair penality. However, if they really think that its bad enough to send someone to jail for a year, why isn’t this equivalent to a $50,000 fine?
To me it seems that the US legal system is designed so that the only poor and
homeless go to prison, but these people stay in prison for a long time for minor crimes. So much for justice.