m law

Gaming with Gamers -- A Growing Rights-Conscious China

The Chinese government is easing the anti-addiction online game policy after an influx of complaints by online gamers. In October 2005("Are Online Gamers in China a League of Their Own?" October 4, 2005), the General Administration of Press and Publications in Beijing proposed a set of anti-addiction policies which place a five-hour consecutive playing time limit on gamers, minors and adults alike. Trespassers of the regulation will be penalized by losing their virtual weapons/points, or being automatically logged off. As a result, adult gamers protested with their virtual weapons – emails. On March 22, the agency announced a new system. Effective this June, adults are exempted from the time limit but gamers will have to enter authentic ID information in order to play online games. On one hand, the new system will grant access to parents to find out what games their children are playing and their online status. On the other hand, the public security department will authenticate the ID information and points will be voided if forgery is the case.

However, the policy may not have much teeth since registered gamers seldom use their real names and age. Consequently, it is still not clear how effective the authentication process will be. Also, granting access to parents may just spoil the fun of the massive multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG). More importantly, what kind of protection is in place to prevent an outbreak of identity theft?
Does such move indicate that the government is easing or losing control? Only time will tell whether it is one or the other, or both. But what is exciting to China is the growing of right consciousness among Chinese citizens and that their voices are being heard. Perhaps the Chinese government is finally letting the parents be the monitor of their children rather than it being a parent to its citizens.

LEXREX v. LackLEX

The intent of the pamphlet, "On Common Sense" by Thomas Paine which fueled the American Revolution, was to bring forth an ideal for America that "the law is king."

Theodore Sorensen’s speech at today’s luncheon at the Center for Law and Security titled “What history will tell us about today and tomorrow“ was more than an account of the historical events he was involved in, but a genuine inquiry into the current administration and its opposition, and whether law is still the king in the United States.

He did not hesitate to criticize the current government for breaking the law. He was displeased with the government action in preempting the Wiretap statute and by-passing the special court. He was outraged by the government’s violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment for torturing U.S. detainees and the government’s claim that the standard for international law set by the Geneva Convention is quaint. In contrast, the Kennedy administration tried its best to respect international law. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy not only appealed to the UN Security Council but also to the Organization of American States where he obtained an unanimous vote to support the decision to quarantine Cuba.

Concomitantly, he argued that not only can we not rely on the chief officer of law enforcement to speak out, we also cannot rely on the opposition to do so. According to Sorensen, the oppositions are afraid of three “Ls.” First, they are afraid to call themselves “Liberals.” They have forgotten the Latin root of the word – Liber, which means free and open-minded. Second, they run away from the “Law.” He stated that the Supreme Court’s ludicrous holding that campaign financing is free speech turns the campaign financing system into legalized bribery. Third, they run away from “Lies.” He accused the oppositions for believing in the lies that only an unilateral preemptive war could get rid of Saddam.

In 1962, at a speech at American University, President Kennedy while acknowledging the fundamental conflicts between the Americans and the Soviets, he added that, “if we cannot now end our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity; for in the final analysis...we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future; and we are all mortal.” President Kennedy did not want to impose democracy on other countries but to create a safe place for diversity. It is certain that the time has come when silence is betrayal* and Sorensen certainty does not betray his country.

*Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City.