WoW Insider Show Episode 167: Law and Azeroth
by Adam Holisky 
Nov 11th 2010 at 7:00PM
Want to have your question answered on the air? Email theshow@wow.com!
Get the podcast:
[iTunes] Subscribe to the WoW Insider Show directly in iTunes.
[RSS] Add the WoW Insider Show to your RSS aggregator.
[MP3] Download the MP3 directly.
Listen here on the page:
Filed under: Podcasts, WoW Insider Show
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
MusedMoose Nov 11th 2010 7:37PM
It's a new podcast! YAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!
*flails about like Kermit the Frog*
casper Nov 11th 2010 7:52PM
Your zune feed is still down... any chance your going to get it back up and running?
Ganrokh Nov 11th 2010 8:01PM
lol, i squealed IRL as soon as i heard my question was first.
Ganrokh Nov 11th 2010 8:07PM
Although I reread the end of The Shattering, Thrall does mention to Gordawg that if the Azeroth Elementals aren't calmed down that they might cross over and wreak havoc upon Draenor too, as that happened to an extent with the Blasted Lands.
Nonette Nov 11th 2010 10:27PM
Come on, guys. The rifts are opening in Outland for the same reason as they are in Azeroth: The Twilight's Hammer are planting devices all around the place to make the rifts. That's why there's that daily quest revolving around picking up the device left behind after a rift closes and taking it to the Earthen Ring. ;P
razion Nov 11th 2010 11:12PM
Gonna beat the dead horse here and remind you all that you guys already made a song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MBGMy8wG3
"It's WoW Insider..."
razion Nov 11th 2010 11:23PM
Oops, the link is missing a 'Q' on the end there...
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MBGMy8wG3Q)
Auriel Nov 11th 2010 11:17PM
A suggestion for you all, when you are trying to explain a serious legal issue on air, you might want to treat it more like a serious issue, instead of sounding like you are in high school (some of the finer points regarding free speech was rather...simplistic in general terms) and take both sides a little more seriously, especially given that this issue is currently being discussed in more than one statehouse in the country..in a couple of states, mine included, this issue has been banted about for over a year, and has even brought in the ISP's as being responsible
likewise for "protecting children".
While in principle I agree with your position (I believe it was Matt's,especially when many games have filters for language, and parental controls) there has been issues with the ESRB ratings in the past, and especially regarding Blizzard's most recent issue with the REAL ID being looked into by more than one privacy group, this is just one of many serious legal issues directed at the gaming industry. Too many groups look at certain aspects of all games (again in the guise of "protecting children"),ie:for example Blizzards trade channel and has made many an article about the ESRB rating and the little box on the back of the box regarding not all content is monitored for example. Many groups and some states are wanting those warnings larger and out front as an example, much like the music content rating which no one really took seriously until musicians was placed in front of Congress, and the ratings content rating actually appeared on the CD's. Does anyone remember Tipper Gore(yes, a Dem of all people)in front of Congress talking about how violent and vile music was and how they needed ratings to "protect the children"? I sure do, and the rating system was held up in court, and many states imposed the counter law, where you had to be 18 to purchase the CD and show id. I would hate to think that we would need to start doing that with games as well.
Cases such as what is currently before the Supreme Court, has far more ramifications regarding the gaming industry than what most folks realize. Many bad laws have been passsed and yes have passed the Court's muster, under the "protect the children" good intentions. Simply put, too many people out there who are not involved in gaming, simply do not understand, nor do they want to hear, how many adults are playing games such as WOW, nor do adults who play the game, realize, how many children are playing as well, and should act accordingly.
Stepping off my soapbox, but really hope that going forward that you remember that things like the current Supreme Court case, has happened before, and if California isn't successful, it looks like it will sadly become something that the Federal Government will stick their nose in, because both sides will make good press under again "protecting the children" from games, regardless if it makes good sense or not. More often than not, good intentions make bad law, but it will give good press to both sides regardless.
Vaydos Nov 12th 2010 1:27AM
I think you mistake this for a website that needs to be politically correct. It's their blog, their opinions, and not yours. Do you have to like how the present their opinions? No. But it is there choice to do so and yours to listen. Stop complaining about something you aren't paying for.
Joltmar Nov 12th 2010 5:36AM
in a gryff? .. what are you guys doing x.x
sardai Nov 12th 2010 9:27AM
i have been playing games like halo since i was about 6, and i am the least violent person i know. seriously, if you are weak willed enough to think "murder is kewl in halo, maybe i should do it real life" then you need your internet taken away and to be put into a rehab or something else to stop you being so pathetic.
/end rant
Howdy Nov 12th 2010 11:04AM
Yay on page listening thing is back!
Strum Nov 17th 2010 4:33PM
When describing first amendment protections, take greater care on distinguishing pornography and obscenity. The podcast uses the terms "obscene pornography" or "pornographic, obscene materials" a lot, and the way it's being used makes the legal description in the podcast absolutely incorrect.
Pornography and obscenity are distinct classifications with hugely different levels of protection. Materials which are merely pornographic, but not obscene, enjoy a great deal of first amendment protection. While governments may put limits on pornographic speech (e.g. age restrictions), adults essentially have the right to buy and view pornography. In contrast, obscenity has no first amendment protection, and governments can and do place limitations on obscenity.