How can you make a game out of this? It seems to me that the game can tell when the user wins/loses, then there's no reason to create the game at all -- just make the win/lose logic do the error checking directly. So what's the point of the game?
Or is it the case that their games are not able to tell you when you win or lose, and the player has to determine that himself or herself? That would make sense to me, but seems like it would be really hard to make "fun" for the masses.
Making immoral actions legal is not an ability a majority in America has.
That obviously depends on whom you ask. Many people consider the right to life debate the most important civil rights issue today -- in some places it's legal to kill late term babies.
Even if you disagree on the abortion issue, I suspect that you can see that "constitutional" doesn't equate with "moral" if you look at where we've been in America with slavery and so forth.
I think I'm done here, if you are. And I agree with what you said earlier that this is a pipe dream for you that will never happen. (For one thing, I guarantee you that the NYT would publish an absolutely scathing series of political editorials if their political editorials were ever threatened with being censored by a new law.)
You want to make business owners the scapegoat, but your logic as you stated it can be applied wider than that. If the government can censor business owners from using their property as they please for political speech, then it can go after somebody else next. The First Amendment, man!!!!
You may think I'm being trivial and avoiding the point, but actually it really is this simple. Here's an example to test your views on: Newspapers are profit-making companies, and their editorial pages have been endorsing candidates and embracing or opposing political causes for hundreds of years. Do you really think newspapers shouldn't be allowed to express political views? Don't you see that by stopping the company (let's say the New York Times) from political speech, you are actually stopping multiple persons (the editors and owners of the NYT for example) from engaging in political speech? Who cares if they do it as the voice of their company or not? That's nobody's business but the owners of the company.
There is not real way to amplify the little people. I want to de-amplify the large. Then they wont drown out others.
1. A mute person and a person with a healthy voice both (legally speaking) have equal freedom of speech, until you tell the healthy person to stop talking so you can "level the playing field" with the mute person.
2. A highly skilled graphic designer can create political visualizations that get virally forwarded around the internet and significantly advance a political cause in comparison to doofuses like myself that just argue on Slashdot for a political cause and largely go unnoticed. I should petition the government to shut down political graphic designers from doing their thing. We need to "level the playing field" so I can have an equal voice with those graphic designers.
3. A gifted writer or orator can motivate crowds to follow a particular political cause. We need to "level the playing field" so random Joe's in the bar have equal weight for their ideas. So the government should clamp down on speakers/writers perceived to be highly gifted in that way.
Do you see what I'm saying? You want to make things more fair and "level the playing field", but all it amounts to is that the "have-nots" are jealous of the "haves" and want the government to take things away from them, including in this case freedom of speech. My point is that freedom of speech means the government NEVER tells people to stop talking. Some people are richer, some people are more talented, some people have natural charisma that people follow. It is unwise (and unconstitutional under the First Amendment) to try to solve that problem by chopping the big people down.