I got carded trying to buy a video game at Best Buy during lunch today.
I was buying two games for my PSP and a cordless phone at the time. The counter person insisted that I show my ID. I refused, eventually leaving all my purchases at the counter and leaving the store without buying anything.
First of all, I'm 33 years old. And I probably look older. But that's not the point.
Remember incidents like this the next time some group of concerned parents says "We only want warning labels." Rating systems and warning labels become de facto censorship when retail chains take it upon themselves to refuse to sell video games rated "M" or movies rated "R" or music labeled "Explicit" to minors.
Most of us civil libertarians oppose government regulation of content because we don't want people telling us what we can and can't consume, content-wise. We begrudgingly accept warning labels so that parents can make appropriate choices for their kids. But it becomes censorship when retail chains are forced (or even when they voluntarily agree) to refuse sales to people because the rating system says it's inappropriate. That's the job of a parent, not a retail chain.
Say whatever you want about Best Buy, Wal-Mart or any other chain that caves to the censorship lobby. They're within their rights to do this. But I'm also within my rights to leave my purchases on the counter and refuse to buy when confronted with such situations.
Warning labels are censorship. Period. That's no longer a slippery slope argument. It's a fact. Parents aren't making the decisions here. Retail chains and censors are.
Posted by THespos at March 30, 2006 01:06 PM | TrackBackDear Tom,
The liberal nonsense that you spew does not get under my skin any more then all the other liberal nonsense that is floating around out there. The fact that you have created a blog using the FAMILY name and use it to post liberal nonsense bothers me.
It was inconsiderate of you to use the family name for your own personal 'vanity' purposes; therefore, out of consideration to the rest of us, I ask that you consider a new domain name (maybe tomhespos.com liberalhespos.com or even civillibertarianhespos.com). If you are so inclined, you could leave hespos.com for family posts and information (we could even post information about that random german musician guy that shares the name).
Please consider my suggestion. I would be mortified if someone I knew thought (even for a second) that I shared any of your views.
Very truly yours,
Conservative Hespos
Posted by: Conservative Hespos at March 31, 2006 04:04 PMDear Kristin:
Does Baker Botts know you're posting to my blog from work?
Considering we've never met, it's rather off-putting of you to refer to my postings as "liberal drivel." I mean, suppose we bumped into one another at a family reunion or something...Wouldn't that be awkward?
Next time, go the polite route with your comments or mask your IP address.
-TFH
Posted by: Tom Hespos at March 31, 2006 04:48 PMWhile we're on the subject, how come when I go to Ford.com, all I see is stuff about cars? What if I want to know how Little Johnny Ford is doing in his remedial math courses?
Conservative Hespos must be "The Sensitive Hespos."
First, the "random German musician guy" is actually a random, world-renowned composer.
Second, I'm having a really hard time envisioning a scenario where someone might log into the domain that Tom has owned for years (and once was a family-oriented site that nobody ever visited), read his posts and say "I can't BELIEVE this! Conservative Hespos must feel this way, too! She should be MORTIFIED!"
Third, who were you billing while you were writing your post?
Fourth, I'm half a Hespos, too, and I'd rather read some intelligently-written commentary from Tom then find out who's job it is to bring the potato salad to the reunion any day of the week.
Lastly, Tom is right most of the time anyway. Except solid creative is more important than he thinks it is.
Please understand that in the interactive industry, such that it is, "Hespos" is a BRAND. Kinda like "Trump" or "Streisand", only with less money and more beer.
Speaking of wacky conservative drivel, Tom, did you know that Liberty Media Corporation is a holding company that owns "interests in a broad range of electronic retailing, media communications and entertainment businesses"? Among those holdings are such shining examples of journalistic integrity as Newscorp (owner of Fox News, The Weekly Standard, and the New York Post)?
Posted by: Cousin Al at March 31, 2006 06:11 PMYeah. Interesting that Kristin and I are in similar businesses. Liberty owns an interest in IAC. I met my girlfriend on Match.com and I advertise on some of the sites on their roster. Who knows, maybe some of the Terms and Conditions for ad deals that I've written have crossed her desk...
BTW, Kristin, did you know that as a fellow Hespos, you qualify for your own free Hespos.com e-mail alias? I'd be happy to give you Kristin@Hespos.com if you want it. It can forward to your BakerBotts.com address. Yes, this offer is valid for conservatives, except where prohibited by law.
Posted by: Tom Hespos at March 31, 2006 06:26 PMHi-
I'm Matt Hespos, Kristin's brother. I have a few observations:
1) As far as I know, we've never met. Maybe we're the long lost Hespos's. Before you decide to invite us to the next family reunion, you should know we're also Catholic, pro-life, and support the war on terror. I just think we should have it all out in the open.
2) Al, what is "half a Hespos"? It sounds incestual to be anything other than "half a Hespos."
3) Congratulations Tom. Judging by the results from the blogs on your front page, it appears you have now eclipsed the previous record for "most comments on a single blog." Way to go!
4)I think your reasoning on the censorship issue is flawed at best. I do not see BestBuy's policy as advocating government control. Rather, BestBuy is giving parents a chance to decide whether or not a game or movie is appropriate for their child.
5) In checking Kristin's IP address weren't you partaking in the government behavior you seem to despise. Isn't this just another case of an authority figure (in this case, the moderator of a website) overextending his control?
So, Tom, please go on with your site. I don't think Kristin meant to offend you, or for that matter hide her identity as she was representing a few of us. We can all go on with our meaningless political drivel on our own. Maybe at the next family funeral we can all catch up and share our views in person.
Regards,
Matt
Posted by: Matt Hespos at March 31, 2006 07:58 PMGreetings, Matt. Glad you chose to de-lurk.
I'll skip the first three things you've posted and move right on to issue #4...
I never said Best Buy's policy advocated government control. I said it, along with similar decisions being made at a number of other retail stores, amounted to de facto censorship. Censorship doesn't have to come from the government to meet the definition of censorship.
Also, I fail to see how a a decision to not sell something constitutes granting parents a choice, as you put it. You're going to have to explain that one to me.
Regarding checking up on someone's IP address, your IP is carried with every page request your web browser makes. It's logged by every single website you visit, unless you take steps to avoid disclosing it. In fact, the IP address of everyone who has ever commented on this website is listed in a queue on my admin interface. You could do the same thing if I were to visit a website of yours. You have caller ID on any of your phone lines? Pretty much the same thing.
Which is more offensive? Looking up someone's IP address in a public database, or leaving nasty comments at someone's website and failing to disclose one's identity? I can appreciate your wanting to stick up for your sis, but she was being rude, plain and simple.
-TFH
Posted by: Tom Hespos at March 31, 2006 09:47 PMHalf a Hespos is better than none, I always say.
It's like Family Feud!
-Al
Posted by: Al at April 1, 2006 01:47 AMTom-
You wrote "But it becomes censorship when retail chains are forced (or even when they voluntarily agree) to refuse sales to people because the rating system says its inappropriate." Who would the retail chains be bowing to if not the government? Also, as a private company (and I'm pretty sure BestBuy is not public, but correct me if I'm wrong) don't they have the right to choose who to sell to and which policies to enforce? Is this really any different than a restaurant refusing to seat a customer based on a dress code? Is that censorship or upholding a standard (albeit an arbitrarily set standard.)
Also, Bestbuy clearly is giving parents a choice. They are saying "some people think this game/movie is inappropriate. We are not going to weigh in on that decision, but instead allow your parents to decide if you are mature enough to play this game." Remember, there are crazies on the other side of this argument too that advocate the ratings system and would try to crucify Bestbuy for selling R rated movies to minors. Bestbuy is playing it safe, can you really blame them? You should be taking issue with the lobbyists (and I'm sure you are), not the store. I think you are just upset because Bestbuy is not upholding your personal beliefs. Was it censorship when Abercrombie removed nudity from its catalogs or just a decision not to upset a large group of potential customers?
Regardless, I'm glad you left your purchase on the counter and went to Circuit City. Although, I would love to hear the story from the clerk at BestBuy who had the audacity to ask for your ID. He must just not be used to selling video games to 33 year olds. Maybe he though some minor gave you money to make the purchase for him.
I'm done with this, if we ever meet in person, I would love to continue this conversation.
Take Care,
Matt
Matt:
It's time to go back to my OP and read it again. I never said or implied anything about government censorship, nor did I ever say or imply that Best Buy wasn't within its rights to do what it's doing. (I also pointed out I'm within my rights to refuse to buy from them.)
Look at it this way. Say you're a musician who often likes to push the envelope. Every time you do, though, your record label tells you to dumb it down so that Wal-Mart will sell the album (Wal-Mart refuses to sell albums that have Parental Advisory stickers). With Wal-Mart and other retail chains doing this, it places a lot of power in the hands of the folks who place warning labels on albums. Now every time you want to push the envelope, in the back of your head you're censoring YOURSELF because you know that if you go too far over the line, your label might send you back into the studio to make sure your recording passes muster with Wal-Mart.
Can you see how this sucks? And do you see how there can still be censorship without the government's involvement?
This is the dynamic involved in just about every facet of the entertainment industry. And it has the effect of imposing least common denominator politics and standards of decency on artists everywhere.
How would someone like Frank Zappa thrive in such an environment, if he were alive today?
All comments are property of the individual poster who left them. Everything else, copyright 2005, Tom Hespos