Sign in to follow this  
Niyeaux

Have y'all been following this HR287 business?

Recommended Posts

Hmm. Maybe we're talking at cross purposes, here. When people complain about their government, it seems to me that they're referring to the Executive branch -- the electable, policy-making, part. As in, "Woo! We just got a new Government!" or "Stupid government! I can't wait until the next election". I've never heard anyone complain about the government and be referring to civil servants...? I've heard people refer to "Congress" (the legislative arm), "The Supreme Court" (the judicial arm) and "The Government". I can't say I've ever heard any American refer to their "Cabinet"...?

Edit: Indeed, my dictionary defines "government" as: "the executive policy-making body of a political unit, community, etc; ministry or administration"

It does have the other, "technically correct" definition, but I don't think I've ever come across people using that in conversation...?

Hmm!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Americans are talking about the Executive branch, we often refer to it collectively as The White House, where the offices of the president and his cabinet are located. Since the cabinet is appointed by the president and not elected, people often just blame the president for the executive branch. It's also worth noting that the office of the president is also Commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces. Technically, the Queen is your Commander-in-chief whatever that means. As far as our structure, although I'm not sure if the three-branch system completely applies here, the military is more or less part of the executive branch. Anyway, as an American, I've never heard "The Government" refer to the executive branch specifically. By your own definition, the Executive branch isn't even allowed to make policy (well that's also a bit muddy, but anyway policy isn't its job), so the dictionary doesn't support that perspective either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously? Is this just an American thing? The fact that the policies of that office would change with every administration, that it would be used as a political pawn, is a minor difference? Industry self-regulation is a minor difference to government regulation? I can't believe I'm (apparently) the only one here who understands how massively important that distinction is.

PS - Tycho, if your police and courts were controlled by the government, you'd be living in a police state. The government could legally, and with no complaints, direct the police to arrest their political opponents. They could force the courts to find anyone they pleased guilty. The police and the courts are independent to the government -- and that's a huge and important difference, not to mention fundamental to democracy itself.

Policies of that kind of bureaucratic detail don't tend to change with each administration. An executive administration can't simply change policy as it wills it. It's different in a parliamentary system where the party in power necessarily has a majority in the legislature, but that is rarely the case with our system. And even when it is, it's no guarantee that the president will be able to push his policy through. The president has certain executive powers, but outside of military matters they are very limited when it comes to actually setting concrete policy.

Anyway, that's different to the relevant points as I see them in this case. To me, it's immaterial what the details of the policy or how it is enforced are--the objectionable part is that the government would be able to mandate regulation of creative work as a matter of course in the first place. Right now, we do have enforced regulation of creative work around the margins--work that is, say, exploitative to children, and so on--and I think that is fine and good. But I absolutely find it extremely objectionable that the government (or any body with legally enforced authority over an entire medium) would have any kind of say about what materials can be sold by private citizens to other private citizens.

I don't think art and creative work are the same as cigarettes, or guns, or energy generation, or the operation of a fair market, and I don't think you can simply extend out any conversation of "regulation" to them as if creative work were simply one more category of goods to regulate. I think speech and art should operate as a protected class of human work, except in very specific cases where there is demonstrable harm done to individuals not in a position to understand or avoid that harm, as with child pornography.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Americans are talking about the Executive branch, we often refer to it collectively as The White House, where the offices of the president and his cabinet are located. Since the cabinet is appointed by the president and not elected, people often just blame the president for the executive branch. It's also worth noting that the office of the president is also Commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces. Technically, the Queen is your Commander-in-chief whatever that means. As far as our structure, although I'm not sure if the three-branch system completely applies here, the military is more or less part of the executive branch. Anyway, as an American, I've never heard "The Government" refer to the executive branch specifically. By your own definition, the Executive branch isn't even allowed to make policy (well that's also a bit muddy, but anyway policy isn't its job), so the dictionary doesn't support that perspective either.

From The Blackwell Dictionary of Political Science:

"'The Government' usually refers to the rulers, that group of people who are in charge of the state at a particular time. Terminology is not universal, even in the English speaking world. In the USA it is usual to call them the 'administration'. (Thus (in 1996) one would write of the Major Government in Great Britain and the Clinton Administration in America.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Policies of that kind of bureaucratic detail don't tend to change with each administration. An executive administration can't simply change policy as it wills it. It's different in a parliamentary system where the party in power necessarily has a majority in the legislature, but that is rarely the case with our system. And even when it is, it's no guarantee that the president will be able to push his policy through. The president has certain executive powers, but outside of military matters they are very limited when it comes to actually setting concrete policy.

I appreciate we're into semantics here, so I'll keep this brief: I think you're getting the definition of "policy" confused. If a governmental regulatory body was created to give ratings to video games, Congress would not have to agree on what games were given an "E" rating, and what games were given an "AO" rating. No policy changes would be necessary for the Executive branch to order them to become stricter with their ratings.

To get back to what's being discussed...

Here's a good discussion of the pros and cons of what we're talking about, that doesn't devolve into "censorship is bad!!!!11" knee-jerk reactions:

http://massively.joy...eo-game-conten/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, you can conjecture and make valid points either way. Either way you're arguing for a lesser of two evils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way you're arguing for a lesser of two evils.

I'm not arguing for anything...? I started off asking what Chris was referring to (he seemed to be referring to the proposed Bill, but he described Dewar's solution -- I wanted to make sure he didn't have them confused). The only thing I care about with regards to this discussion right now is that people appreciate that there's a fundamental difference between government sanctioned self-regulation and government regulation -- and that's only because everyone seems to be trying to tell me they're the same.

Even if you dislike them both, I think it's important to acknowledge and understand their differences -- even if it's just so you can complain about the right things!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing for anything...? I started off asking what Chris was referring to (he seemed to be referring to the proposed Bill, but he described Dewar's solution -- I wanted to make sure he didn't have them confused). The only thing I care about with regards to this discussion right now is that people appreciate that there's a fundamental difference between government sanctioned self-regulation and government regulation -- and that's only because everyone seems to be trying to tell me they're the same.

Even if you dislike them both, I think it's important to acknowledge and understand their differences -- even if it's just so you can complain about the right things!

As I say, I understand the difference in implementation, but that doesn't affect my opinion about whether the presence of either one is appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I say, I understand the difference in implementation, but that doesn't affect my opinion about whether the presence of either one is appropriate.

Aye, that's fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think art and creative work are the same as cigarettes, or guns, or energy generation, or the operation of a fair market, and I don't think you can simply extend out any conversation of "regulation" to them as if creative work were simply one more category of goods to regulate. I think speech and art should operate as a protected class of human work, except in very specific cases where there is demonstrable harm done to individuals not in a position to understand or avoid that harm, as with child pornography.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see if I can reconsile a bit of this with a real world example. I'll try not to go into too much detail. Forgive me for getting a bit off topic.

I work at a nuclear power plant. In the US, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the govermental body that regulates nuclear plants. Their job is to oversee the safety, security, licencing, etc. of nuclear plants. It is an independent agency of the federal government, which means that it is part of what we call "the government" but it is not under direct control of the President. The President cannot "order" the NRC to do anything. NRC madates carry the force of federal law which means we are required to comply with them under penalty of fines or even losing our licence to operate.

There is also a self-regulating body called the Institue of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). INPO is funded by the nuclear industry and plants send people there to work as part of their inspection teams, instructors, evaluators, etc. INPO does not carry the power of law, but their evaluations and recommendations are given serious weight by both the industry and the NRC. They help to ensure that plants do more than just meet the minimum legal requirements and help provide industry internal accountability. INPO was established at the recommendation of the Kemeny Commission set up by President Carter after the Three Mile Island incident in 1979, but it in no way answers to the US government.

So what does that have to do with video games? I agree with Chris in that you can't impose these same standards to video games. Video games are a creative process, while nuclear power is a technical one. You can quantifiably measure and evaluate how a plant operates and the results of that operation. You can't do the same with a creative process (despite many people trying to).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, neither have. There were a couple big scares, but so far I think the USSR is the only place ever to manage to kill someone with a nuclear power plant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, let me know when the ticker goes from 0 to 1. I'm not about to soap box for nuclear energy, but it's demonstrably safer from a global environmental standpoint than fossil fuel energy, is plentiful, renewable, and cheap, as well as being enormously accountable to public scruitiny. A natural disaster kills 15,000, and the headline is that people might develop cancer someday. Meanwhile, coal power dumps tons of heavy metals and toxic chemicals right into sensitive environments, incidentally releasing more radiation into the environment than nuclear energy plants, on a regular basis (the mining is a different issue, but right now there's no Uranium mining going on in the US. We import it all from countries without very good safety codes, which is the very thing that makes our nuclear power industry a safer business to work in than real estate). We blame safety concerns on the power source itself, not even considering that we're still using plans created in the 70s designed for submarines.

I'm all for better wind and solar power of course, I'm thrilled that technology, which can be easily and safely implemented by the clumsiest amateur, is catching on and works so well. It doesn't really do the world any favors to be scared of nuclear energy though.

So, like video games, I would rather we trend towards better alternatives and more diversity, but that's not a reason to falsely accuse what exists of being more dangerous than it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My whole point was to show an example of government oversight vs self-regulated oversight, not to start a debate about nuclear power. I could say quite a bit about it, but I really have no interest getting into an argument about nuclear energy (especially in a thread that has nothing to do with it) so let's just forget I brought it up at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point has been argued that creation and dissemination of creative works should be exempted from any regulation because of its inherent value. I don't want to get into a discussion about nuclear energy either, just to make the point that, like with violent media, claims about its dangers are grossly exaggerated.

Except you can actually kill someone with fission, of course, which is why it's regulated and video games aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, neither have. There were a couple big scares, but so far I think the USSR is the only place ever to manage to kill someone with a nuclear power plant.

Er... jokes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work at a nuclear power plant. In the US, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the govermental body that regulates nuclear plants. Their job is to oversee the safety, security, licencing, etc. of nuclear plants. It is an independent agency of the federal government, which means that it is part of what we call "the government" but it is not under direct control of the President. The President cannot "order" the NRC to do anything. NRC madates carry the force of federal law which means we are required to comply with them under penalty of fines or even losing our licence to operate.

Thanks for taking the time to give a real world example here. Of course, The President has ways of getting control of things he doesn't like.

On the subject of the sale of entertainment to minors, I personally believe it's quite simplistic to say there should be no restrictions on what can be sold, and to whom. Off the top of my head I can think of a stack of things that I believe any reasonable person would want controlled (pornography, images of rape and torture, images of real violence/death, instructions on how to build bombs, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of the sale of entertainment to minors, I personally believe it's quite simplistic to say there should be no restrictions on what can be sold, and to whom. Off the top of my head I can think of a stack of things that I believe any reasonable person would want controlled (pornography, images of rape and torture, images of real violence/death, instructions on how to build bombs, etc).

No one said or implied that there should be no restrictions on what can be sold to whom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for taking the time to give a real world example here. Of course, The President has ways of getting control of things he doesn't like.

Off the top of my head I can think of a stack of things that I believe any reasonable person would want controlled (pornography, images of rape and torture, images of real violence/death, instructions on how to build bombs, etc).

Can't disagree more. As a matter of community standards we don't allow sale of pornography to children, but unlike some countries, like Australia, we don't censor porn, and it's absolutely illegal to censor "dangerous" information unless its a direct threat to the security of the state. Instructions on building bombs is knowledge, which is inherently valuable. Nuclear weapons are science. If there's a problem, we regulate the sale of chemicals and materials that can make bombs, because explosive materials can kill someone, unlike knowledge of chemical combustion which can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this