Microsoft has recently been trying to play censor make Xbox Live safer for everyone by making sure that Gamertags contain no sexual innuendo (among other things, click here for the full list). That’s fine in theory, but real life tends to be different. An example of this is the story of a user who got banned for using his name as a Gamertag. His name happens to be Richard Gaywood and he used his name as his Gamertag which promptly got him banned (check this link for proof) . Ignoring the fact that Dick must have really been the subject of much ridicule in school, this is totally stupid. This isn’t the first time that they’ve done this by the way. They’ve gone after the Gamertag of someone calling himself “theGAYERGamer” (who just happened to be gay) which attracted the attention of Gay and Lesbian groups, and not in a nice way.
Microsoft really needs to get a clue here. I’m all for trying to stop racist, sexist, and homophobic content from ending up on Xbox Live (or anywhere else for that matter). But for crying out loud, use some common sense! If Microsoft isn’t careful, they’re going to get pwned by every Gay and Lesbian positve group out there. Or perhaps ticked off users will start using PS3s and Wiis instead.
Hey IT Nerd – What Do You Think About Video Game Bans Being Struck Down?
Posted in Commentary with tags Lawsuit, Video Games on June 27, 2011 by itnerdI have to admit that I was surprised by today’s decision to strike down bans of any sort when it comes to the sales of video games to minors. Here’s what The Globe And Mail had to say:
The Supreme Court rejected California’s argument that the Constitution’s free-speech guarantees under the First Amendment do not prevent a state from prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors under 18.
“Our cases hold that minors are entitled to a significant degree of First Amendment protection. Government has no free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which they may be exposed,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in summarizing the court’s majority opinion from the bench.
Wow, that’s remarkably forward thinking. Here’s more forward thinking via the CBC:
The court said the U.S. has no tradition of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence.
“California’s claim that ‘interactive’ video games present special problems, in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its outcome, is unpersuasive,” the ruling added.
You know what that means. If parents really want to stop their kids from playing Duke Nukem Forever, Team Fortress 2, or Call Of Duty: Black Ops, the answer is simple. They have to be parents and govern what their kids do. They have to say no when the cool new video game hits the shelves. They have to find other activities for their kids to do. They have to limit how much their kids play their Xbox 360, Wii, or PS3.
In other words, parents have to be parents. What a radical concept.
So what do I think of this decision? I think it’s good. I think it is the only logical decision. As I type this, people are not going to be happy. But once the smoke clears, people will see that this is the right call.
Leave a comment »