Clinton To Take On Rockstar

Hillary Clinton, protector of the innocent, has vowed to see an FTC investigation launched against Rockstar because of the 'Hot Coffee' sex mod (already under investigation by the ESRB). From the Gamespot article: "...following recent reports revealing that the video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas has graphic pornographic content which may be unlocked by following instructions on the Internet, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will hold a press conference to discuss legislative solutions to keep inappropriate video game content out of the hands of young people." ARGH! Okay...seriously...it's already rated M. It's out of the hands of children. If Rockstar actually left the content in that wasn't the smartest thing they've ever done, but it's not like they killed a puppy.

Comments

Politics, Sex, Violence, Video Games.

[torpor]

Bad mix. Unless you're a politician, pornographer, mafia don, or teenager, that is.

meanwhile

[AtariAmarok]

meanwhile, Bill works feverishly to open the sex game in GTA before Hillary puts a stop to it altogether.

Re:meanwhile

[E Galois]

Hillary just better hope Bill doesn't unlock the "hot intern" inappropriate intimate relationship mod...

--
"God gave men both a penis and a brain, but unfortunately not enough blood supply to run both at the same time." -- Robin Williams (on Clinton/Lewinsky affair)

I like hillary

[BoomerSooner]

However this is pure stupidity. The game has to have a downloaded patch to get it to work on a modded XBox. This is unlikely to fall in the hands of the average 7 year old by accident.

Re:I like hillary

[PhilHibbs]

I didn't know the Hot Coffee mod was available for the X-Box, so far all the coverage I've seen has been about the PC version.

Re:I like hillary

[interiot]

As I understand it, it's just a change in some data in the saved-game file, so it should work semi-easily on any platform where you can twiddle the memory card.

Re:I like hillary

[PhilHibbs]

No, it doesn't affect the game save, it modifies the game itself (at least, the PC version that I downloaded) and affects all new and saved games.

Re:I like hillary

[stinerman]

She's already starting her run to the center for her presidential bid in 2008. Hopefully most people will see right through this.

She represents the worst of the Democrats in that she doesn't have any positions that won't change based on tomorrow's opinion poll. Not only that, she repesents the "government knows better than you" wing as well.

Re:I like hillary

[macdaddy357]

I wonder if the Junior Senator from New York and everyone else having a cow realize how much free press they are giving this game? People who had never considered buying it before will be curious now, and it will fly off the shelves! Rockstar couldn't have bought this kind of publicity.

Re:I like hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

the "government knows better than you" wing as well.

Which wing was that, the "both sides of the line" wing? Face it, when one party wants the government to intrude into our daily lives to make sure we're all safe and happy from ourselves, and the other party wants the government to intrude into our daily lives to make sure we're all safe and happy from terrorists, we're all boned.

When the Libertarian Party's alternative quits being "the government knows nothing", I'll vote for them.

Re:I like hillary

[superstick58]

She represents the worst of the Democrats in that she doesn't have any positions that won't change based on tomorrow's opinion poll. Not only that, she repesents the "government knows better than you" wing as well.

Aren't these two points of view exclusive? If the government knows better than you, they should not care what polls say. Instead, they will do what is "right" in their eyes and the public opinion be damned. I understand your description and it does seem to describe Hillary accurately enough, but perhaps you should mention that the reason she believes "government knows better" is that public opinion is such that they want government interference to "protect" our children.

This is difficult to express in a clear manner. Someone help me out.

Re:I like hillary

[eyeye]

They care what the polls say until they are elected..

Re:I like hillary

[Cornflake917]

Not only that, she repesents the "government knows better than you" wing as well.

I would hope that the government is more informed and intelligent than than I am. If not, we are in bad shape.

Hence, we are in bad shape.

Re:I like hillary

[Cornflake917]

"I would hope that the government is more informed and intelligent than than I am."

Fortunately, I don't think it's that hard to be smarter than me.

Re:I like hillary

[infonography]

I take it you don't know many 7 year olds.

Re:I like hillary

[FooHentai]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a good thing that a politician would listen to the view of the people (opinions, polls) and adjust their position accordingly.

Much better than someone who pushes through an agenda irrespective of public opinion.

Re:I like hillary

[stinerman]

I understand fully. They are not mutually exclusive.

If 51% of people think GTA should be banned, then that is the position of such Democrats. Then, since she knows better than you (assuming you are one of the 49% that don't think GTA should be banned), she will proceed to ban it.

The way you put it was about as elegant as I did in the previous post, so hopefully between our 3 posts, people are getting the point.

Re:I like hillary

[dootbran]

Well, I play Halo 2 from time to time and you end up playing with some 7 year olds and most can't get the concept that singing jungle bells in june and throwing a grenade at your team mate because he took "your" sniper rifle aren't good things to do.

So excuse me if I doubt that they can solder a mod chip in an xbox without breaking it and hack GTA.

Re:I like hillary

[WaterBreath]

I think the insinuation was that she's not adjusting her position, just her campaign platform. These are, as I'm sure you know, not the same thing. Anyone familiar with politics, at least in the US, should be well aware of that.

Re:I like hillary

[faloi]

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Politicians tend to say things that'll mesh well with opinion polls, and then go off and do what they want (because they know better). And let's not forget that it's possible to take a poll in a way that gets exactly the opinion you want expressed. You want firearms banned? Concentrate your polling in mostly urban areas where there's less recreational firearm use. Want to keep 'em around? Poll primarily in rural areas where hunting, target shooting and the like are still done regularly.

That may not be the best example, but you get the idea.

Re:I like hillary

[jebell]

What if the will of the majority tramples the rights of the minority? It wasn't that long ago that politicians in the American South fought to keep blacks and whites from using the same public facilities. This was what the majority of their white constituents wanted but that doesn't make it right.

Re:I like hillary

[Golias]

When the Libertarian Party's alternative quits being "the government knows nothing", I'll vote for them.

As a libertairian, allow me to steal freely from Mark Twain to say that the problem with government is not what they don't know, but what they do know that isn't so.

Re:I like hillary

[Golias]

I dount that Senator Clinton is losing sleep over rising sales at Rockstar. Most of the pervs who would go out of their way for the hack in question probably already own the game anyway.

Senator Clinton is ramping up for a White House bid, and she has a problem among evangelicals that she's seen a bit too much as a progressive feminist for their tastes. She needs "moralist" issues to win over a few of them, because I think she understands that she needs to win over a few Southern states to have any real chance of winning.

The outcome of her little "crusade" is irrelevant. It gets her face on CNN as fighting against pornography, and that's enough for it to be politically worth doing.

Re:I like hillary

[Gherald]

> When the Libertarian Party's alternative quits being "the government knows nothing", I'll vote for them.

I am a Libertarian, and I don't see anything the Party platform that can be construed as "the government knows nothing."

I would start by saying "the government is terribly inefficient and should be reduced".

Re:I like hillary

[Knetzar]

We all know Rockstar bought off politicians to create this buzz. The worse rep it has, the more people want to protect it and want to buy their products.

Re:I like hillary

[Guppy06]

" She's already starting her run to the center for her presidential bid in 2008."

If this is what the center looks like, then bring on the outlying crackpots, please!

Seriously, I'm half-tempted to look into creating a new political "party" for next year's elections. The only thing on the platform is that everybody would agree to vote against any and every piece of legislation in Congress, no matter what. I for one could use a two-year vacation from Congress...

Re:I like hillary

[westlake]

it will fly off the shelves!

But only if it can be found on the shelves.

GTA was already drawing enough fire to make a retailer flinch. Now they get this sucker punch from Rockstar. Who needs that kind of grief?

Re:I like hillary

[ChaoticLimbs]

Boy are you right about Hillary being part of that "The Government knows better than you" crowd on the very left.
Since there's one on the right too, who do we vote for in '08 faced with a choice between a religious nanny state and a socialist one?

Re:I like hillary

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

Well I'd love to scream libertarian at you, but just because that is my favorite doesn't mean it is the only option. The constittional law (Sp?) party is also pretty anti-nanny state. I'm sure there are a few others.

Re:I like hillary

[stinerman]

Ron Paul pretty much does that already. He's offically a Republican, but claims to be libertarian. He votes against every last appropriations bill and often votes against simple resolutions like "Commending country X for having free and fair elections".

Re:I like hillary

[Detritus]

The problem is that there are too many politicians like Al Gore, who was a conservative when he was a congressman, then became a liberal when he ran for higher office. He adjusted his public political beliefs to match what he thought the voters wanted to hear.

"Tell me where the People are headed, for I must lead them!"

Re:I like hillary

[kabocox]

She's already starting her run to the center for her presidential bid in 2008. Hopefully most people will see right through this.

She represents the worst of the Democrats in that she doesn't have any positions that won't change based on tomorrow's opinion poll. Not only that, she repesents the "government knows better than you" wing as well.

Well, damn. It looks like I'll be going for who ever the republicans push. I actually had a hard time deciding back between Gore and Bush. You wanna know the deciding factor? Liberman's views on video game censorship. I've been happy with Bush since and really upset at the Democrats for their lawyering. This time around I stuck with Bush. Gosh, can't the Democrats push anyone with some common sense? I'm netural, but if they go towards censoring my medium of entertainment, I'm voting against you.

Who knew that the republicans where more into free speech in video games than democrats?

Re:I like hillary

[heinousjay]

I disagree with this, respectfully. I think a politician should follow their conscience rather than the mercurial (and often ill-informed) wishes of the general public. Being responsive to public opinion is the same as running for re-election right after winning the vote, which is basically what politicians do now. I'd like it a whole hell of a lot better if the goal of people in public office wasn't mostly to keep that office as long as possible.

Re:I like hillary

[QuantumG]

They should buy the Hot Coffee mod, just like Valve bought the Counterstrike mod, and sell it in stores with an AO rating. Or better yet, improve the sex minigame (maybe by making it so you can shoot the girl halfway through the act) and sell it as an expansion pack.

Re:I like hillary

[a whoabot]

Don't vote. Once voter turnout lowers to a very, very low number, the whole system will snap. There'll just be a mass realization that something's very wrong. "Huh, vote turnout is only 5%? Man, something's wrong."

Re:I like hillary

[SA Stevens]

I had a nice 'vote for nobody' campaign button back in 1980. . .

Re:I like hillary

[AoT]

I will do you one better; form the Do-Nothing Party.

The platform is:

We will show up to be sworn in and then never show up again.

The bueaty of this is that if you get more than a third of the house or the senate nothing will ever be done by congress as a quorum call will never be met. For those who do not know, each branch of congress requires at least 2/3 of the members to be there to officially begin a session. this is called a quorum call.

Re:I like hillary

[Guppy06]

"The bueaty of this is that if you get more than a third of the house"

First off, a quorum is a majority in all cases except in electing the president and vice president if the presidential electors fail.

And if you don't have enough, that will have little effect on Congress' ability to pass laws, since abstentions don't count one way or the other. I figure it'd accomplish more to actually show up for everything and actually vote against everything, forcing the government to "do nothing" rather than doing nothing yourself.

"a quorum call will never be met."

A quorum has to be asked for. So long as nobody in the room minds there's only, say, six legislators in the room, they can still pass laws. Situations like this have happened in the recent past.

Re:I like hillary

[EzInKy]

However this is pure stupidity. The game has to have a downloaded patch to get it to work on a modded XBox. This is unlikely to fall in the hands of the average 7 year old by accident.

Of course you're right, but she is trying to appeal to the moderate right. I really wish the far left would learn to tone down their rheteroic some, if it weren't for their big mouths scaring off middle America we'd have civil unions and national healthcare in this country by now.

Re:I like hillary

[EzInKy]

She's already starting her run to the center for her presidential bid in 2008. Hopefully most people will see right through this.

Yes, hopefully they will, that way they can still vote for her knowing that it will take a centrist Democrat to win.

She represents the worst of the Democrats in that she doesn't have any positions that won't change based on tomorrow's opinion poll. Not only that, she repesents the "government knows better than you" wing as well.

What, are you out to sabotage the Democrats and let the Republicans continue to increase their power in the government? Look at Congress. Look at the Whitehouse. They are in control precisely because the current crop of Democrats aren't willing to give in to public opinion.

Re:I like hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, a chance for the first bi-partisan bumper sticker: RUN HILLARY RUN! Democrats put it on the back bumper. Republicans put it on the front bumper.

Re:I like hillary

[Shihar]

Err, you might want to take a better Constitution party. They are very much against socialism... but they have the small problem being very xenophobic and wanting to combine the Church and the State. If you crank a Democrat all the way over to his logical extremes and you have communist with no interest in cultural issues, then if you crank a Republican all the way over you have the Constitution party.

Honestly, if you don't like who is running, vote for the guy that you feel closest to who isn't a Democrat or Republican. Unless the Democrats pull a candidate who is all for social freedom and can at least suppress their impulse to spend, or the Republicans pull a more libertarian minded person from their ranks who can both resist the impulse to spend AND avoid trying to bring me to Jesus... well, I'll be voting Libertarian.

Personally, watching these elections is killing me. It used be that you could at least count of Republicans to hold the economic line against spending everything they have and then some, and you could count on the Democrats to beat the religious conservatives back into their churches and stop legislating morality. These days though it seems like each party has taken on the worst of the other. Republicans are in control of the government now and are burning through money like it is going out of style. The Democrats on the other hand seem to be utterly incapable of taking a stand against the legislation of morality. Hillary trying to 'save the children' is a perfect example. Setting up censor boards to protect our morality is the kind of bullshit I expect out of religious conservatives.

Would I want a true Libertarian in government? Hell no. Libertarians don't have a plan for winning. If they ever won they wouldn't know what to do. Abolishing the IRS sounds great when you are speaking to a group of people in a rural town hall and everyone has a gun rock in their pickup truck, but the reality is that you really need a little more planning then that.

Further, they need the ability to take on compromise positions and let not-so-important positions slide. In principle I might believe that people should be able to do whatever they want to themselves without interference so long as they only hurt themselves. Does that mean we really need to legalize crack immediately? If the Libertarians really wanted some creditability, they would take some reasonable positions that the mainstream could potentially swallow. They can save preaching the rest of their whack-job positions for later.

That said, I will vote Libertarian. If nothing else, it is a like waking into the voting booth and voting No. Further, you clarify that you are not voting for either Republican or Democrat because you don't care or are lazy, but because you really just don't like Republicans or Democrats - which in my opinion is a far more effective form of protest.

Re:I like hillary

[macwise77]

She represents the worst of the Democrats in that she doesn't have any positions that won't change based on tomorrow's opinion poll.

Yes, but unfortunately she's a better liar and actress than politician, making her the most disillusioning hot topic in politics. Just like her putrid husband, she is a liar and a crook, and so self focused it is scary.

I have to admit that it is difficult to understand why they are so popular among American democratic voters, but at the same time I realize that they are so effective in their lies because the just spread it on thick, one after another after another.

I know I am going to be modded troll for even thinking ill of such venerable saints here at /. The point remains, as was spoken by parent, that Hillary (as does Bill), takes not one stand on anything she doesn't feel will increase her popularity. That is truly frightening. I realize that nobody is perfect. I also admit that Bush is not perfect. But one thing I can assure you. When that man says he is going to do something, he does it. He may not be right all the time, but he is consistent. That is what a true leader is, and should be.

On a side note, it seems funny that nothing but kudos are given for H&B here on /., until they do something that is anti-gaming/slashdot. Suddenly they are abandoned as THE embarrassment to the left. Interesting.

legislative solutions?

[enrico_suave]

"... Hillary Rodham Clinton will hold a press conference to discuss legislative solutions to keep inappropriate video game content out of the hands of young people."

Can you legislate good parenting?

e.

Re:legislative solutions?

[Punboy]

yes. and there is a department devoted to enforcing such things. its called the Child Protection Agency.

Re:legislative solutions?

[88NoSoup4U88]

Legislate, nah :

Keeping parents partly accountable for misdeeds their kids might do : Yes.

I think Hillary shouldn't be focusing on this game (it's not even -allowed- to be sold to minors : So wtf is the problem), but more on her husband, who seems to be slipping his dick in stranger's mouths...

Re:legislative solutions?

[alvinrod]

Not really, but for some reason a lot of politicians think that they can, or at least substitue legislation for the necessity of parenting.

Rather than parents taking an active interest in the gaming, television, and online habits of their children, politicians would rather pass laws regulating the flow of information and sale of materials that they feel are harmful to a child. Never mind the fact that these viewpoints are completely subjective.

Maybe I might feel it necessary for any children I might have to play GTA and experience violent behavior. Maybe I might want them to be able to view pornographic scenes in movies or video games. Who the hell do they think they are to act so self-rightous and decide what is and what is not good for the rest of the world? Essentially what we end up with is a form of censorship, someone else deciding what's appropriate for me to view. I don't mind a review board that posts recomendations and warns me of the content in a product (I don't want to pop in a cartoon and have it turn out to be horse porn or brutal executions), but I want to have the freedom to decide for myself or my children what is appropriate.

It falls right into line with the American Way though. Why do if yourself when you can get someone else to do it for you and save you the work? These politicians can garner votes by promoting their activities as good for the American public and can go home and sleep at night convincing themselves they've somehow done some good in the world.

Re:legislative solutions?

[AtariAmarok]

"So wtf is the problem), but more on her husband, who seems to be slipping his dick in stranger's mouths..."

The way this is worded, it is like you are complaining about something that happened to you at a campaign rally years back.

Re:legislative solutions?

[Anne_Nonymous]

It takes a government to raise your child.

Re:legislative solutions?

[(H)elix1]

Can you legislate good parenting?

Hard to say. Most politicians seem to think it is worth spending time talking about it, for no other apparent reason than to have lobbyist fill their coffers trying to 'influence' the decisions - be that yes, no, or not make one.

Re:legislative solutions?

[dusik]

>> "...politicians would rather pass laws regulating the flow of information and sale of materials that they feel are harmful to a child."

I wonder how many of them actually care about the children. I think politicians will do just about anything to enhance their public opinion.

Re:legislative solutions?

[RealityMogul]

They don't enforce "good" parenting, they enforce "required" parenting. There's a big difference.

Re:legislative solutions?

[RealityMogul]

It's easy to care about something, but its harder to understand it at a level where you can affect positive change. It basically amounts to uneducated caring.

Re:legislative solutions?

[Intrigued]

Actually, in a twisted way, she is responding to her constituency. Parents these days will tell you how society has let them down, the schools failed them, didn't teach their children, and all the other ways that everyone failed to parent their children for them.

(irony)Someone has to take a stand and bring in the villiage to provide parenting for these children and the parents are sending a message to their representatives that they won't stand for society's failure at this.(/irony)

BTW - to head off any flaming, I have 5 children that I home-parent (yes, I'm one of those psycho parenting fundamentalists) It works for me.

I have a neighbor who's children were never taught the basic laws of not trespassing, respect of other people's property and laws dealing with fundamental consideration for others. The police have been out many times to fulfill society's obligation to teach these kids, but the police seem poorly suited for the job. I wouldn't have any problem with parents being forced to take parenting classes after the 3rd time that their kid has the police called on them. If it were my kid, I would happily go to the class even if I felt it was unjustified just to know that somewhere, some parent that really needs it is forced to go too.

If I truly want the government to stay out of my personal life, I respect the society laws in dealing with other people and teach my children to do the same so no one has to step in and do it for me. Then everyone can leave me the hell alone. I call it parenting.

Re:legislative solutions?

[Phu5ion]

Very true, the greatest motivator for a politician is re-election.

Re:legislative solutions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Goodbye Freedom, Hello Mom
by: Scatterbrain

We'll ban that book and T.V. show,
Forget that movie, no you can't go.
Can't sell that record, don't like that song.
We know what's right we know what's wrong.
Can't have abortions, what's yours ain't yours,
Just obey the laws.
Too young to drink, say no to drugs
We'll take your piss and blood.

'All the world's a stage you get the lead.
Ain't no way I'm gonna play the part of the fool,
There ain't no way man - no way!'

Bikers wear helmets, cars safety belts
You might hurt yourself.
We're watching out, We're watching out
We're watching out for you...

Well the new right's been at work some time
They ain't so new no more
Can you hear 'em knockin'
Knockin' down your door.
1984 has past, forget about Big Brother,
Welcome to the 90's where the government's your
mother.

They'll tell you - don't do that.
They'll try and tell you - it's for your own good.
Big Mother is watching you
Mother's protecting you
Mommy knows what's right for you

They force their will on all the rest
They got the power, they know what's best.
The high court is stacked to the right
Old man on the left won't live through the night.

They'll tell you - don't do that
They'll try and tell you - it's for your own good
Big Mother is watching you
Mother's protecting you
Mommy knows what's right for you...
Goodbye Freedom, Hello Mom
The Bill of Rights just disappeared
There it is - whoops it's gone!
Goodbye Freedom, Hello Mom
All your rights just disappeared
Everybody stay calm.

First amendment casualties, but they won't be the
last,
Kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye it's disappearing
fast.

They'll tell you - don't do that
They'll try and tell you - it's for your own good
Big Mother is watching you
Mother's protecting you
Mommy knows what's right for you...
Goodbye Freedom, Hello Mom
The Bill of Rights just disappeared
There it is - whoops it's gone!
Goodbye Freedom, Hello Mom
All your rights just disappeared
Everybody stay calm.

Re:legislative solutions?

[slughead]

Not really, but for some reason a lot of politicians think that they can, or at least substitue legislation for the necessity of parenting.

I find it funny that whenever republicans do this, everyone starts talking about "THE RADICAL RIGHT," but when democrats lead the way, it's all about "the government" or "politicians" in general.

It works the same way with gun control: when republicans do it, it's "big government," when democrats do it, it's "the liberal's" fault.

It's so confusing, that's why I can't vote for either of those two parties.

Re:legislative solutions?

[88NoSoup4U88]

Yep, and I still got the sperm-stained pants to prove it ! ;-)

More serious : I'm not a native english speaker, so what in the wording would imply that it happened to me ? I re-read the sentence, and I can't seem to get it.

Re:legislative solutions?

[ElleyKitten]

So, parents who buy their kids GTA should be arrested?

Re:legislative solutions?

[j-turkey]

I find it funny that whenever republicans do this, everyone starts talking about "THE RADICAL RIGHT," but when democrats lead the way, it's all about "the government" or "politicians" in general.

It works the same way with gun control: when republicans do it, it's "big government," when democrats do it, it's "the liberal's" fault.

What's the difference in this case? They're all assholes, right? ;)

Seriously, though...the radical right and left both share a similar desire -- to control us. From a social standpoint, the far right seem to act as the moral elite, and those on the far left are the intellectual elite. They both want to ram their agenda down our throats at the expense of freedom (although they both claim to embrace freedom in their rhetoric).

I'm with you -- they're pretty much the same. I was expecting to see some fiscal conservatism in our recently elected republican government (executive branch, house, senate), but this didn't happen. Dominant parties always seem to spend enough to stay dominant. I guess that this makes them even more similar.

Re:legislative solutions?

[milkman_matt]

So, parents who buy their kids GTA should be arrested?

Psst! Don't give them any ideas!!

Re:legislative solutions?

[AtariAmarok]

"Yep, and I still got the sperm-stained pants to prove it ! ;-)"

Hmmmm. I'm now having second thoughts on ordering the clam chowder.

Re:legislative solutions?

[Guppy06]

Parenting? It takes a vill^H^H^H^H national legislature to raise a child!

Re:legislative solutions?

[Guppy06]

" Not really, but for some reason a lot of politicians think that they can,"

No no, you're giving them too much credit; politicians don't think. The voters think that the politicians can do this (although, to be fair, they were deliberately led to believe this). If you're a politician and you get some angry, knee-jerk phone call from a soccer mom, you're not going to tell her "Well, that's really not my area to deal with...," at least not if you want to get elected next term, you say "Hell yeah! Sex games is t3h suxx0rs! I shall save you from t3h evi1! Vote for me after I bring you your salvation!"

Re:legislative solutions?

[kmac06]

If you mod down and post a reply, your mod will be cancelled. I guess your sig is a good way to get rid of negative modding :)

Re:legislative solutions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not.

And besides, I think most rational people would agree (i.e. not conservative christian rednecks) that it is far worse parenting to allow your kids to play a mature rated game where the objective is to go around commiting crimes ranging from vandalism to murder than it is to then unlock an extra feature which allows a bit of sex.

Personally, I think this sort of attitude is brought about by parents who are scared of their kids particpiating in the sex game they once played which resulted in them getting a giant stick stuck along way up their arse!

Re:legislative solutions?

[RealityMogul]

Mods - please mod parent down. No need to reply, I'll understand. Thanks. ;)

Seriously though, that wasn't the intention, I was being sincere. Its been years since I've participated in moderation, but last time I did, you could post after doing a mod and it wouldn't retroactively delete the mod. I guess you're saying that has changed. In any case, mods could log out and then post anonymously.

Re:legislative solutions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, you have to post first, anonymously, then mod. I've done that on occasion, because I take joy in describing my abuses of the moderation system. For example, if I had points right now, I'd mod you overrated after I clicked submit. I don't, so you're safe for now.

Re:legislative solutions?

[nbehary]

You can reply as an AC still. I've actually done that once. I forget why......

Re:legislative solutions?

[AoT]

"but more on her husband, who seems to be slipping his dick in stranger's mouths..."

Yay, an excuse to go all grammer porn.

First, it should be strangers', the apostrophe goes after the s in a plural.

Second, because you used the present tense it sounds like it is something that is happening now or something that you were involved in. Better would have been "who seems to have slipped his dick in strangers' mouths...". It is a matter of the present tense being immediate, or giving the impression of immediacy.

Look what learning Latin has done to me.

Re:legislative solutions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay, an excuse to go all grammar porn.

Yeah, it made you suck at spelling.

Re:legislative solutions?

[AoT]

strangely enough it did. My spelling has been fucking horrendous. When I write longhand I completely mix up sylables as well.

Re:legislative solutions?

[88NoSoup4U88]

Bending verbs, and using the different tenses, always been one of my main problems.

Thanks for the reply, very helpfull.

Re:legislative solutions?

[Brandybuck]

Can you legislate good parenting?

No, but the liberal Democrats will keep trying. Maybe that's what Hillary meant when she said "it takes a village to raise a child." Even though she and Bill managed some success in raising Chelsea, she obviously she doesn't think other parents are capable of raising their own children.

p.s. This post shouldn't be construed to mean that I think social conservatives are any better in this regard. But I do find it ironic that the same political viewpoint that screams "keep government out of the bedroom" the loudest doesn't realize that most game consoles are located in children's bedrooms.

hurting themselves

[reedsr]

All of the parties that are complaining are most likely just increasing sales, don't they know that the more people hear about a game being terrible (morally that is) the more it will sell? when a game is outlawed it is desired even more by those that are told they are not supposed to have it.

Re:hurting themselves

[dusik]

Amen to that. Until recently I was content just watching my girlfriend play her copy of San Andreas. Now I'm starting to get the urge to go and shell out $50 for my own box. I might even be willing to boot into Windows to play it!

People picking on sexual content really piss me off. Go advocate good parenting for a change!

Re:hurting themselves

[toad3k]

This game is awesome. I've been playing it non stop all week now. I can't believe I almost didn't get it.

In any case, this is just the latest round of rockstar vs the establishment. Every grand theft auto from the very first one has been discussed publicly by whatever representative based government felt the need.

The gta london expansion for the first gta was released specifically to snub the UK government. I believe Australia once banned gta2 (my memory is fuzzy though). Lieberdickhead used gta as his platform to fame which resulted in the establishment of the ESRB.

If anything, rockstar is providing a political service. Free publicity for rockstar, free publicity for politicians.

Re:hurting themselves

[syrinx]

Lieberdickhead used gta as his platform to fame which resulted in the establishment of the ESRB.

ESRB: founded in 1994.

GTA: released in 1997.

Re:hurting themselves

[qoa]

It was Mortal Kombat not GTA that he harped on.

Something Familiar - Here to Help

[Sammich]

We are the from the Government...we're here to help

Re:Something Familiar - Here to Help

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like the self-righteous position that many Republicans take until they themselves are laid off or disabled and require the help of government's generous welfare system because their family and church did not come through for them.

Government Help != Bad

Re:Something Familiar - Here to Help

[wed128]

yea, but you're looking at the world help the wrong way

'Government Help == Bad' =~ s/Help/Censorship/;

there ya go

Thibnk of the children

[PhilippeT]

keep inappropriate video game content out of the hands of young people."

Ok then make a law any parent that purchases games for their kids is legally responsible to ensure that the child playing meets the ratting. We all know that making the retailer responsible is pointless since kids don't buy the games they get mommy and daddy to do it.

Only problem is that wouldn't get her votes so it isn't going to happen.

Re:Thibnk of the children

[jclast]

Although it's not a replacement for good parenting, wouldn't the easiest law to implement be on the retailer?

If we make the ratings enforcable instead of just letters on the box, and retailers had to pay a fine if somebody bought too young and the retailers had to warn everybody about the content of games rated either 'M' or 'AO', I think we'd see a lot less of these cases.

We'd have just as many kids playing these games, but then we'd all be covered by the law. We all took responsibility for our action because we listened to the clerk's spiel about the game content and chose to pay for it anyhow. If we then choose to give the game to our children, it's not the video game company's fault. After all, there's a rating on the box, and the clerk told us there would be hookers.

You can't force common sense, but you can force people to be legally informed (like Miranda).

Re:Thibnk of the children

[PhilippeT]

When would the clerk say this to the parent? After they ask them if they want to use their super save bonus card or if they want to sign up for a special discount card. The public doesn't care. Congress cares because the media is making a big story about it and if they get there names in the article it will raise there re-election chances.

Re:Thibnk of the children

[jclast]

Silly me. I was trying to think of a way to actually solve the problem instead of letting politicians and various other talking heads strut around and spew nonsense at the US public.

At least if a law is in place, a good place to start is "Is the law functioning as intended?"

You know, they say

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear if yous end slashdot a special GET request, it'll redirect you to porn.

I demand an investigation.

Re:You know, they say

[bleaknik]

*Shakes Fist*

I'll send you a special GET request, boy!

Makes sense (not!)

[clausiam]

...keep inappropriate content out of the hands of young people...

Let's see:

* Killing pedestrians by running them over: Appropriate for children.
* Shooting people in the head: No problem, kids are ok with that
* Toasting cops with flamethrowers: Hey, that's cool, go on my little angel dear.
* Nudity and pornographical images: What is this, I'll call my congress[wo]man immediately. They need to stop this filth from getting to innocent kids.

Somebody really need to get their priorities right! Not to mention it already has an M-rating as someone already mentioned in another post.

Re:Makes sense (not!)

[FortKnox]

This is America! Violence is good, wholesome, and can even be on local public channels!

Showing a nipple? Put that woman in jail!!!

Yep... ass backwards.

Maybe this is a good thing, though. If stuff like this keeps coming up, maybe the nation will see that we are backwards compared with the rest of the world??

Re:Makes sense (not!)

[NanoGator]

"Somebody really need to get their priorities right!"

To be fair, there is a good deal more teen pregnancy going on than teen toasting-cops-with flamethrowersancy...

Re:Makes sense (not!)

[iCEBaLM]

This just makes the case for the game even further.

If empirical, real life evidence shows that flooding popular culture with violence reduces crime rate while tabooing nudity and sex increases teen pregnancy then that only stands to reason that we should remove these silly restrictions.

Re:Makes sense (not!)

[clausiam]

To be fair, there is a good deal more teen pregnancy going on than teen toasting-cops-with flamethrowersancy...

Because teens will be teens and this whole push to preach abstinence instead of safe sex will never work. The religious right driven push to make teen/pre-marital sex a sin and punish parents who try to make their kids safe (the lawsuit against the mother who provided condoms for her son) is backfiring greatly and will lead to many more teen pregnancies and STDs.

Talk to your kids, make them behave responsibly as much as you can but don't expect the majority of 14-17 year olds to not want to explore sexuality once their hormones start pumping.

Re:Makes sense (not!)

[mooingyak]

I happen to agree that this nation has it priorities a little screwed up.

But consider that the negative consequences of violent acts tend to be fairly obvious, while the negative consequences of sexual acts are a good deal less so, especially since there's no guarantee that any particular time will have a negative consequence.

So some people are not that worried about the violence their kids are exposed too. They expect it to be clear what the problems with violence are. But the same people get nervous about exposing their kids to sexual content, as the problems are less clear.

I think we (Americans) freak out way too much about nudity, though I feel it's a bit more justified in the case of pornagraphic material.

Re:Makes sense (not!)

[NanoGator]

"This just makes the case for the game even further."

I was just trying to explain why some peeps get so dip-shitted about sexual content in games/TV. They see kids having sex, they see that they didn't teach their kids that, they don't remember being being a kid so they assume it must be sexual content bombardment. (Actually, it probably has to do with the 'clean wholesome 50s era' not having much in terms of teen pregnancy or stds. Since the big difference is T&A on TV, I doubt much more thought has been put into the real cause of it.)

This has to be understood before anybody can reason with them. Me personally: I find it amusing that they think the problem is the locked content on the game itself. You have to travel amongst the greatest pron collection man has ever seen in order to get this patch.

Re:Makes sense (not!)

[milkman_matt]

Now that you mention it... In this game, the 'official release' of this game, you already run missions for pimps by beating up non-paying johns and such, plus you can get health back by picking up hookers (which is followed by no 'graphics' but the rocking car and plenty of moaning and such... Is this 'fully clothed sex game' really THAT much more offensive?

Re:Makes sense (not!)

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Screw self-control and moderation! People should be able to do whatever they want at any age! Condoms are 100% effective against pregnancy and STDs! 14-17 year olds are all emotionally ready for sex!

You're a fucking idiot. Just because something hapens to be in line with a relgious belief doesn't make it a bad idea. The problem is only telling children (yes, they are children) to abstain, and not explaining sexuality and sex to them and the pros and cons of each method in addition to promoting abstinence as the best method.

Frankly I've always found people who couldn't control their own behavior and blame it on hormones to be rather pathetic.

Re:Makes sense (not!)

[DavidTC]

Those parents are lying to themselves and everyone.

Almost everyone who has kids with the ability to play these games, let's call it 13-18, hit 18 themselves between 75 and 64.

'Free love' ring a bell? 'The Summer of Love'?

Underground abortion clinics?

The pretend 'reality' of the 1950s we all see on TV didn't even last out that decade. They might have grown up watching Leave it to Beaver, but when they hit college, they were smoking dope, barricading themselves in the Dean's office, and sleeping with random people.

Re:Makes sense (not!)

[DavidTC]

What I think is scary in this country is we're discussing this like consensual sex and violence are somehow comparable.

Re:Makes sense (not!)

[westlake]

...keep inappropriate content out of the hands of young people...

The problem is, it looks as if Rockstar was trying to ratchet up the level of pornographic sex and violence in GTA another notch, or two, or three, while avoiding a poisonous AO rating.

Re:Makes sense (not!)

[arose]

Self control does not comes from laws, it comes from (good) education, but you are an obvious troll so I leave it at that.

Re:Makes sense (not!)

[clausiam]

Based on your style you should probably use some self-control yourself maybe?

Yeah! Screw self-control and moderation!

Don't think I ever said anything like that.

People should be able to do whatever they want at any age!

Don't think I ever said anything like that. However teens are what they are and you cannot control them 100% of the time so encouraging safe behaviour is still a common-sense approach. There's nothing wrong with suggesting or even recommending abstinence, but don't think that guarantees anything

Condoms are 100% effective against pregnancy and STDs!

Very close to, yes, if used properly, and definitely about 99.9% more effective than not using them.

14-17 year olds are all emotionally ready for sex!

Don't think I ever said anything like that. Some are, most are not. But most of them will experiment with it one way or another regardless. So again, even if you tell them "don't" at least let them know how to be safe instead of turning the blind eye

You're a fucking idiot.

Oh well in that case I guess you must be right. Such a convincing argument.

Just because something hapens to be in line with a relgious belief doesn't make it a bad idea. The problem is only telling children (yes, they are children) to abstain, and not explaining sexuality and sex to them and the pros and cons of each method in addition to promoting abstinence as the best method.

Ah - some common sense. Yes, I mostly agree. Present all the options and the pros and cons. Abstinence is certainly ultimately the safest option ("best", well that depends on age and circumstances I think and not some "wait until your married" dogma).

Frankly I've always found people who couldn't control their own behavior and blame it on hormones to be rather pathetic.

When I said "hormones" I referred to typical teenage behaviour and curiosity in general.

Well, maybe next time you don't have to post as an AC and that may help you to moderate your style a bit.

At least...

[LordEd]

At least TFA actually acknowledges that the game is rated 17+.

While the game is rated M, and therefore not readily sold to those below the age of 17, the mod is easily available online.

Thank you TFA... I will go back to blaming parents again.

This is sooooo contradictory

[k3v0]

Everyone is getting upset about some non-graphic sex scenes in a video game where you walk around beating and killing people?

FTC?

[Fr05t]

I'm Canadian and not really educated in what government bodies handle what, but the FTC on video games? I didn't realize that was something inside their scope.

As I said before it is a 17+ game. I think the real problem and news head line is "Parents allow 10 year old kids to play games clearly marked 17+" or "EB sells age 17+ games to preteens".

Oh well at least Rockstars PR move which tossed out the "H" word has all the uninformed news sources spewing more favorable B.S.

Headlines from google news:
"Hackers Add Sex Scenes to Game Red Herring
Hackers Modify PC Game New York Times"

Re:FTC?

[bleaknik]

Fr05t, you raise some interesting questions that are facing the people of the United States.

When the FTC was initially formed, it was designed to protect the US from monopolistic practices

Unfortunately since its conception it has taken a more active role in the rest of our lives. Today, it does have the authority to regulate. Unfortunately our government is growing too large, and they are trying to micromanage the peasants.

And that's the issue here. GTA is rated M, and therefore is intended to only be sold to 17+. As I understand it, the ESRB is a completely independent organization that is supposed to thoroughly test each game before they make their ratings.

While I cannot find documentation to prove it, I believe their is legislation that requires retailers to ID those who may be too young for the content, similar to the way movie theatres ID their patrons. (Do any fellow /.ers have information about this possible legislation?)

Irregardlessly, can we blame anyone for our irresponsibility when it comes to the material that comes before our kids. I am not a parent, nor do I plan on it (though my fianceé may disagree)... I will not/would not/shall not let my kid play this sort of crap. You cannot legislate good parenting.

Nor should the FTC or Senator Clinton attack Rockstar. They created a game intended for mature audience, and they succeeded at that (sales numbers will show for that). Everyone in the US should realize that this attack on a video game company is actually an attack on our freedoms.

Of course we could try to write our legislators, but what will this actually accomplish? I once read that an email is worth something like 200 voter opinions, a letter is worth 400, and a call is worth 1000. /shrug.

Re:FTC?

[pthor1231]

While I agree with your post, don't use the word "Irregardless" It's a spawn of other words, use regardless instead

Interview with Mrs. Clinton

[FrontalLobe]

"Argh! I don't get technology... Better start banning stuff. That'll make all the problems go away."

Re:Interview with Mrs. Clinton

[maiku]

"Argh! I don't get technology... Better start banning stuff. That'll make all the problems go away."

Very true. Al Gore, inventor of the Internet, would never do this.

Good Idea, Bad Idea

[Wraithfighter]

Look, if Rockstar did leave this code in there, then they screwed up big time. I mean, yes, the game is rated Mature, but had the ESRB been shown a sex minigame during rating then the game would be rated AO.

However, any hearing about the mod should be held after the ESRB does its report, makes its findings, and changes GTA's rating if neccessary. Otherwise its too great a chance that the gov may just get in the way of the actual investigation.

Re:Good Idea, Bad Idea

[whodunnit]

Accually Probably not. God of War had a sex mini game included in it, that you didn't have to crack the game to access. And it only has a mature rating.

Re:Good Idea, Bad Idea

[LordEd]

... and if the game was rated AO, all those 17 YO kids would NEVER be corrupted into thinking about sex.

Re:Good Idea, Bad Idea

[PhilippeT]

And the government of the USA would never want to get in the way of an actual investigation.

Not fit to make that decision.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but the federal government is not fit to make any kind of lifestyle decisions, much less regulate modded video games. It's not the government's job to be mother. So thanks but no thanks Hillary, you're neither needed nor wanted.

If nothing else, now rockstar will really not support mods, which is a shame because it's what makes or breaks PC games these days...

Re:Not fit to make that decision.

[Fr05t]

"If nothing else, now rockstar will really not support mods, which is a shame because it's what makes or breaks PC games these days..."

Excellent point.. if this whole monkey poop fight actually goes anywhere it could have serious long term consequences for games. Up until now a lot of game companies have encouraged modding, or at least looked the other way legally because it was beneficial to them and the community.

Now if Rockstar gets burned over this we could see BF3, HF3, Star Craft: Ghost, etc being locked down tight and law suits under the DCMA flying. Really companies would be justified in doing so to protect themselves from possible government/legal action. They shouldn't have to, but they will.

I'm in Canada so I can't really contact my US senators/congress people, but I would recommend every US slashdot reader contacts theirs and Mrs. Clinton. Make sure you really make the point of this game being rated for 17+.

TFA misses the point

[PhilippeT]

Yes but TFA misses the point in that "the mod is easily available online" doesn't mean kids will get to see it... they need the F'ing game first...
Now of course parents who have no clue what a "mod" is will be thinking Rockstar has somehow made porn available on the Internet, what's that those same parents don't bother checking where on the Internet their kids... O dear don't tell them it's full of free porn or else they might want the Internet company investigated.

Re:TFA misses the point

[dusik]

Indeed. Actually, people are often afraid of the unknown. The concept of "Internet" and "mod" in this case are the mysterious unknown. People are also often irrationally afraid for their kids.

The question is, how do we address those fears in this case. Education maybe?

>> "A psychopath can't tell the difference between right and wrong. A sociopath knows the difference - he just doesn't care."

According to your sig, the people enraged about Rockstar must be psychopaths then? ;)

Re:TFA misses the point

[PhilippeT]

Education won't help, if the article stated that a Modification to the original game is what caused this people wouldn't be angry at Rockstar since someone modified their game...

It's like me taking an episode of the Simpson and replacing every frame of Marge with a porn actress wearing no clothing.

Would Hilary and co be angry at Fox for making the Simpson's.

I know the modder says the content was already in but no one, to my knowledge, has proved/disproved this.

Re:TFA misses the point

[MysteriousPreacher]

Forget the guess-work. Just sit back and enjoy watching Hillary chasing ambulances and hope one of them hits her.

How about getting the facts right first?

[grumbel]

Rockstar has claimed that the minigames were *not* in the game at all, but that the modification added them, given that the modification is rather large that might be true, ie. its not just a 'enable_porn_minigame = 1' thing. Not sure if that claim is actually true, but if it is that surly blasts the whole thing away. I mean should we outlaw the internet explorer and google just because I can 'unlock' porn with it by entering that word into the search-inputbox?

I am all for regulating video games and making age ratings mandatory, but this whole issue is really rather pointless. Even if Rockstar left the minigames in, people with access to the internet have far easier ways to get far worse porn with a few clicks.

Re:How about getting the facts right first?

[McCarron]

Rockstar's claim in PR talk. On my Xbox version a simple byte flag change in my saved game file unlocked that minigame, no files added/removed from the game. It's been called the censor flag. The Xbox version also has clothes on the players in the minigame, but I've heard the PC version they are nude.

The larger PC mods simply add more features hacks to make the mod easier to pull off and more interesting. And they contain the changed file, not instructions on what bytes to change in the files to achieve the result.

The thing I'm confused about, other games such as Playboy Mansion on the Xbox has an even more graphic love scenes in the game than in San Andreas, because the Playboy mansion scenes the players are nude, not in GTA Xbox. That "mode" don't have to be unlocked, it's part of the game. It is also an M rated game, just like GTA. The only difference? One is a LOT more popular because it's a much better game, that would be GTA.

I too agree with improved regulation of age ratings for Video Games, and movies. Because if a parent wants their 8 year old kid to play GTA, they'll buy it for the kid reguardless. But don't just let the kid go and buy the game, let the parent decide if the kid is mature enough to play it.

Re:How about getting the facts right first?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Rockstar's claim in PR talk. On my Xbox version a simple byte flag change in my saved game file unlocked that minigame, no files added/removed from the game. It's been called the censor flag. The Xbox version also has clothes on the players in the minigame, but I've heard the PC version they are nude."

Well, that would explain why the PC-version patch is large--it includes new skins for the character models that makes them nude. (purely conjecture on my part, y'unnerstand....)

I hate Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of democrats catering to the moral majority.

Stupid

[hypnoticstoat]

Hilary is just still pissed off because she got made to look like a fool by Bill partaking of some "hot coffee" action of his own in the oval office (apparantly he had his with cream.

Naked Sims, film at 11

[jon787]

Not investigating Maxis over The Sims Nude Patch

INCONCEIVABLE!

Re:Naked Sims, film at 11

[Soul-Burn666]

Why is the parent modded funny and not insightful?

This is also a "small modification you can download from the internet".

What about pornographic games?
What about actual hardcore porn? Just like the games, it's marked as not for children.

What's the big controversy about this one game, which is marked not for children on the box?!

I think they are trying to nail Rockstar for everything, and use this as the reason.
Just like Al Capone was convicted for a minor crime they could prove and not the full deal.
Clearly Rockstar aren't even guilty of any crime, but it feels like they are targetted like this.

Re:Naked Sims, film at 11

[Jim Hall]

While off-topic from the article itself, it's interesting to note that the Google query you linked to has About.com as the first hit. Let me say that again: About.com is distributing a mod/patch that lets you see the Sims naked when they take off their clothes (normally, the game blurs the naughty bits.) But no one is up in arms that About.com (an otherwise reputable web site) take down the mod.

Thanks Hillary

[squiggleslash]

...some of us are tired of characterizations of us liberals as meddlers in issues that should be a matter of personal responsibility. You seem to be doing all you can to persuade everyone otherwise.

If a parent allows a child to play a game named "Grand Theft Auto" (a major crime), with a clearly visible rating that clearly identifies it as being for adults, then it's hard to see how this is any fault of the publisher or anyone else but the parent concerned.

It's also hard to see the obsession with preventing children from seeing anything "sexual" while, apparently, being unconcerned about children coming across something violent. Here's a major clue for you, speaking as someone who was a child for 12 years of my life, and a teenager for about eight: children think stuff to do with sex is icky anyway. As for teenagers, on the other hand, they'll find something sexual in a church newsletter. Hidden scenes in stupid video games aren't going to make a major difference.

A second issue you may not realise is that sex is, fundamentally, neutral. It can be used for good and for bad. It is not inherently evil and to be used only under extreme circumstances, such as when bad things threaten you. In fact, it's actually, usually, a beautiful thing. This is not true of violence. So why people like yourself give a stuff about the former but not the latter will... god, am I really pointing this out? I must be the 912,291th person on Slashdot *alone* to have pointed out this rather obvious fact.

Seriously. I appreciate that you, Senator, as someone born at the tender age of 21, probably do not realise any of this and so have some screwed up views on the subject. They may or may not be distantly connected with people close to you. For all I know, a night in bed with Bill is worse than five rounds with Muhammed Ali. Nevertheless, please do us all a favour and shut the f--- up. You do not know what you're talking about. You are meddling in a way that gives those of us that would otherwise support you a bad name. If this is part of your presidential ambitions, I think I speak for most of the liberals on Slashdot when I say: Kerry '08.

Re:Thanks Hillary

[metamatic]

In case you aren't aware, Hillary Clinton is planning a Presidential run. She has been going after various right-wing concerns in an attempt to make herself look more palatable to what the Democrats perceive as the mainstream of US politics.

She has been talking about abortion as a "sad, tragic choice" that should happen "only in very rare circumstances", supporting the war in Iraq, talking about how she's adamantly against illegal immigration, and so on. It's all rather blatant. I'll be curious to see if it works.

Re:Thanks Hillary

[styxlord]

The scary thing is that the conservatives are probably going to be more outraged that a tit was exposed than government becoming more involved in "parenting". Hillary likely saw this as an opportunity to lead a bipartisan attack on this travesty of home grown American values ...

Re:Thanks Hillary

[BandwidthHog]

I think she's doing all that to draw fire from whoever they field as the real candidate. I mean c'mon, really. If the Democrats put her up as their candidate in '08, I'm starting a write-in campaign for J. Danforth Quayle!

Re:Thanks Hillary

[squiggleslash]

In case you aren't aware, Hillary Clinton is planning a Presidential run.

I did actually mention that ;)

She has been talking about abortion as a "sad, tragic choice" that should happen "only in very rare circumstances"

In my experience, that's what most people agree with, and I'm one of them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is the Senator's actual position. Support for the right has never implied support for the act. It's a falacy promoted by the media and extreme right that anyone who's pro-choice is pro-abortion.

Nonetheless, if the GTA "outrage" is bogus, then she's fundamentally being dishonest, whipping up hysteria regardless of the victims of the hysteria. I cannot support any politician that does that.

Re:Thanks Hillary

[kevin lyda]

sadly a majority of americans disagree with you. and even though she's doing this i'm sure right wing radio is saying the "sex thing" in "that video game" is all the work of liberals.

republican pennsylvania senator rick santorum blamed all the liberals in boston for the ***worldwide*** church abuse scandals. blaming liberals for something dumb in a video game is downright sane compared to that one.

Re:Thanks Hillary

[nege]

You do of course realize this has nothing to do with children at all. It is just various politicians seeing this as something to capitalize on.

Hillary is clearly using this simply as a means to get into a public debate about an "issue" that involves something important, like "kids". Never you mind that the actual substance of the issue is completely and fundamentally flawed, which you did a superb job of expounding upon.

That is my problem with the democratic party right now, they try too HARD by trying to do what they think the public perceives as "right", as opposed to just DOING what is right in the first place. I am thinking more and more about joining the libertarian party.

Re:Thanks Hillary

[Epi-man]

Nonetheless, if the GTA "outrage" is bogus, then she's fundamentally being dishonest,

Interesting, I don't believe I have ever seen Hillary as being fundamentally honest. Have you watched and listened to her over the past 13 years?

Re:Thanks Hillary

[Syncdata]

some of us are tired of characterizations of us liberals as meddlers in issues that should be a matter of personal responsibility

Nothing new under the sun.

Leland Ye? Democrat.
Hillary!? Democrat.
Tipper gore? Democrat.

Not that republicans aren't meddling either, but to trust in any politician/political party to represent a consistant pro-freedom position is...problematic.

Re:Thanks Hillary

[Linus Torvaalds]

A second issue you may not realise is that sex is, fundamentally, neutral. It can be used for good and for bad.

Finally, a description of sex the average Slashdotter can comprehend!

Sex is like the Force.

Re:Thanks Hillary

[fyrie]

"In my experience, that's what most people agree with, and I'm one of them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is the Senator's actual position. Support for the right has never implied support for the act. It's a falacy promoted by the media and extreme right that anyone who's pro-choice is pro-abortion." I buy what you are saying, but what the poster is saying is that this is the first time in her career that she is using this type of language. It started about 6 months ago.

Re:Thanks Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

well said /clap

Re:Thanks Hillary

[Blakey Rat]

I must be the 912,291th person on Slashdot *alone* to have pointed out this rather obvious fact.

And yet they still get modded up as insightful every goddamned time...

Re:Thanks Hillary

[j-turkey]

If a parent allows a child to play a game named "Grand Theft Auto" (a major crime)

That doesn't break any laws at all whatsoever. It is akin to a parent allowing a child to watch an R rated movie, which is completely legal...or were you being sarcastic?

Re:Thanks Hillary

[squiggleslash]

"Grand Theft Auto" is a major crime, not the act of playing a game called Grand Theft Auto. The point was the game is named after a major crime, and rated for adult use only. How can a parent not get more clues that this might not be right for their fragile children?

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Re:Thanks Hillary

[HungWeiLo]

Same shit, different day.

Liberals win elections by pretending to be conservatives, and conservatives win elections by pretending to be liberals. Works like a charm every time.

Re:Thanks Hillary

[The Ticktockman]

Would you like to know why everyone throws a tizzy over sex in the media?

No really, would you like to know the real reason?

If you care to actually hear the other side of the story, then please hear me out. Understand that I find this to be an incredible non-issue, and I happen to stand firmly on the side of the First Amendment. I just feel like nobody is really getting while people get upset with sex/nudity in the media.

First off, there are still many people in America who feel the sex is a special thing reserved for two people truly in love. They don't like the idea of just having sex for the fun of it. They feel that sex is, for lack of a better word, "sacred". Some may not agree, but I can at least understand this.

Second, the way that sex in the media tends to be portrayed is not as a beautiful thing shared between two people deeply in love. Instead it is a fling, or simply a lustful act. This is something that upsets many parents, because they DO know that the things their children see will affect how they think. And no matter what you may think, parents can not always control what their children see. I personally feel that if sex was presented in a real loving way in the media, instead of a lustful way, that a lot of parents would allow their children to view such material.

Does this mean the government should intervene in any way? Of course not! But before you start the "sex in the media should be seen by everyone!" argument, at least understand what the other side thinks, instead of what you think they think.

Re:Thanks Hillary

[squiggleslash]

I'm sure that's how you feel, and probably how many others feel too. But I wihs I could agree with the notion that negative/"immoral" portrayals of sex are the "real reason" "why everyone throws a tizzy about sex in the media".

If this was really about positive portrayals of sex, then people would actually be complaining about the lack of that. Not complaining about sex, period. Just "bad" sex. That's not the message I get from those who complain the loudest. It's always about the dangers of children coming across sexually explicit material.

Re:Thanks Hillary

[cavemanf16]

It's not going to work for me, and I'd consider myself quite conservative on a lot of issues! Siding with James Dobson and pals will in no way engender her to the millions of middle-of-the-road Americans like myself who would gladly see an end to the current Big Brother White House we have now. No, I didn't vote for Bush the second time around (I honestly didn't vote this time on purpose), but I did the first time - and what a mistake that has turned out to have been!

Unfortunately, Hillary *might* be more appealing to me if she wasn't acting like a no-talent-assclown of a politician, as in this case. Just as the grandparent poster mentioned, I'm the 947,125th person on Slashdot to point out that getting everyone's panties in a bunch over GTA's "hack it to get raw sex scenes" software code comes no where close to the real-life bestiality and carnal sex scenes, movies, and writings available WIDELY on the Internet. Search Google for yourself, it's EASY to find this stuff! Besides, what's worse?: A 3d-animated sex scene in a video game, or a movie depicting the actual beheading of an actual innocent hostage in Iraq? I'm sure there are thousands of "children" falling into depraved behavior this very minute all because of GTA. Please. It used to be that evil evil "Doom" game where there are *actual* *demons*! Oh my! Doom is responsible for Columbine!!! Fuck that! Other asswipe children being cruel to one another are responsible for Columbine, not some video game.

Re:Thanks Hillary

[Brandybuck]

She has been going after various right-wing concerns in an attempt to make herself look more palatable to what the Democrats perceive as the mainstream of US politics.

Amazing! The left can even find a way to blame the right for the stupidity of Hillary Clinton. If they look hard enough, I'm sure they'll find a way to blame the right for Tipper Gore's warning labels as well!

Get real! That's about the stupidest comment I've seen on Slashdot to date. Are you saying that Hillary gave a sly wink to the left, that she was really just playing along with the right? Do you really think anyone on the right would vote for her? Do you really think she'll say "fooledja!" after the election?

This is modern liberalism at its core! This is progressivism without its clothes! The heart of this philosophy is that people are stupid and need the intellectual elite to rule over them. People who install this patch and watch cheesy porn on their Playstation are stupid and intellectually elite people like Hillary need to smack them down!

This move isn't about pandering to the right, it's about sending a clear and distinct message to the left that she's fully within their camp!

Re:Thanks Hillary

[mink]

"Second, the way that sex in the media tends to be portrayed is not as a beautiful thing shared between two people deeply in love. Instead it is a fling, or simply a lustful act."

Sometimes sex between two people who are deeply in love can be a lustful act as well.

New Show

[hypnoticstoat]

"Ladies & gentlemen, welcome to the new series of the ever popular show "Overhyped Media Moral Outrage!". After our previous successes in villanising the likes of Doom & Manhunt, this year we turn our attentions to that firm favorite with the kiddies GTA:San Andreas." Coming up after this our Saturday night film "Meet The Parents"

What political party ...

[jkujawa]

Is Hillary trying to seek the Presidential nomination from again?

Sure looks like a Republican from here.

Re:What political party ...

[hal2814]

Hillary is just doing what her husband did quite succesfully in 1996 when he ran his campaign based on the most popular bits of the "Contract with America." She knows she's getting the Democratic nomination if she wants it. She might as well pander as far right as she can so she can practically own the swing vote. She will do this as long as liberal voters let her get away with it.

Bush also did something similar with his "Compassionate Conservative" campaign back in 2000. You could see him tilting farther left the more certain he was of the nomination. Conservatives thought he was just telling voters what they wanted to hear so he would get elected. Many of them are still reeling from some of the programs he passed during that time even though he told them he was going to push them back in 2000 (massive education spending and the Social Security Prescription plan, among other things).

Re:What political party ...

[stinerman]

She might as well pander as far right as she can so she can practically own the swing vote.

That strategy didn't work well with Mr. Gore or Mr. Kerry. In this case, I think you may be right, though. The soccer mom center-right will vote for her because she's female ... not to mention many of the anarcho-feminists coming out of the woodwork to vote for her.

Re:What political party ...

[Momoru]

Wow so even when a democrat is going overboard with this kind of thing, you still find a way to blame republicans? This issue has been pretty bipartisan...I mainly remember Joe Leiberman (another democrat) leading the way on this the last time it was an issue. Let's keep the partisan "my team is better then yours" crap out of the discussion if it's not relevant.

Re:What political party ...

[the_maddman]

Hey, I'm a guy, and I'd love to get a chance to vote for and elect a female president. I just want it to be someone I trust and mostly agree with. I wonder how many people you could get to vote for a female third party candidate?

Re:What political party ...

[AvitarX]

But she is hated.

I know some really liberal dems that hate her for no reason and would likly vote republican or not vote if she ran. And anyone I know moderate hates her bitterly.

The hatred is so bad and prevelent that I dislike her and don't even know why. I think she would be a terrible canidate to field from a strategic point of view even if she is great overall.

I don't really think she even has the nomination locked down. I don't know who is planning on running but Edwards has a shot if he so choses, and a more refined Dean does too.

Re:What political party ...

[Ironsides]

I know some really liberal dems that hate her for no reason and would likly vote republican or not vote if she ran. And anyone I know moderate hates her bitterly.

Reasons why, since you are wondering:
From asking people from various states (VA,NJ,CT,NY):
Don't feel they can trust her
She abused the system to get elected from New York.
Don't like that she stood by her cheating husband (feel she should have left him [and this was the women saying this])
Think that she is a powermonger (sorry, best word I have for this) and in it only for her own ego trip.

The individuals I gathered this from range across the spectrum of the left/right. In addition, they do not always vote one way or another. I have also yet to meet someone that voted for her and/or likes her being in power.

I don't really think she even has the nomination locked down. I don't know who is planning on running but Edwards has a shot if he so choses, and a more refined Dean does too.

As someone who has voted republican in the last several elections, I would love to see Edwards on the ticked as I might actually vote for him. (I would rather have my choice between two candidates I like than the lesser of two evils). If the democrats want to pratically garuntee that I vote republican in '08 they will nominate Hillary for president.

Re:What political party ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives thought he was just telling voters what they wanted to hear so he would get elected. Many of them are still reeling from some of the programs he passed during that time even though he told them he was going to push them back in 2000 (massive education spending and the Social Security Prescription plan, among other things).

Wait, are you insinuating that GWB was more honest with his campaign rhetoric than Bill (and potentially Hillary) Clinton? You've just bought yourself a (Score:-2 Troll) if any moderators see this.

Re:What political party ...

[Rayonic]

The hatred is so bad and prevelent that I dislike her and don't even know why.

Here is why I don't like her, and note that I don't even go into her policies:

1) Her reaction to her husband cheating on her seemed strange and opportunistic. She practically admitted as much, saying she felt better about the Lewinsky scandal after she and Bill started talking about her political future.

2) Her blatent finger-to-the-wind pandering, as is evidenced by this article.

Re:What political party ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And this issue didn't work for Lieberman in 2000 when he was Al Gore's running mate and it didn't work for him in 2004 when he was seeking the Democratic Presidential nomination.

Also, Lieberman's a hypocrite for attacking video games when he himself said that the ESRB system was "the best rating system in the entire entertainment industry" in USA Today 2 years ago.

== BearDogg-X ==

Political Analysis

[MyLongNickName]

For all those who don't know, this is the equivilant of 'Copy Article Text' karma whores.

On Slashdot, you just go out, find the article, and make sure you are among the first to paste it into yor 'Comment' box. Mods with no brains mark it up. Then, others copy the article text, but because they weren't first, get modded down.

In the political world, you go out, find a hot button topic, and make sure you are amoung the first to 'go after it', while in reality doing nothing. Voters with no brains vote for you. Then, Jesse Jackson goes after the issue, but because he wasn't first, people roll their eyes and laugh.

FUD

[n3k5]

Hillary Clinton alrady spread FUD about GTA* being a 'murder simulator'; either she is an idiot for critisising a game she never played, or if she played it and still gives the public this biased view, she's a liar. As i previously said, it's just an arcade game about driving from A to B and then maybe to C, and shooting some targets every now and then. There's no real death, no real sex. Not even virtually real. Just Pac-Man-like game mechanics (but quite entertaining). The player is rewarded for helping people, punished for harming innocents, and taught how to be a better driver.

Now she has found another lump of coal to throw on her fire and pretends that San Andreas has pornographic content, which is like saying Quake 3 Arena has a brutally realistic damage model (you just need to install this little mod, but most of the code is allready in there!). Again, that's either idiotic or an outright lie. And the large majority of the population (read: voters) isn't all that familiar with this matter and just believes her.

Re:FUD

[Momoru]

Also you do not HAVE to kill anyone in GTA. You can simply drive around, and stop at all the stop lights. And it can work just as well as a boring real life simulator.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Frogger was more of a murder simulator than GTA. I mean, it was the WHOLE game of frogger.

Boo for sex

[FidelCatsro]

Sex is a clearly dangerous and malevolent thing that needs wiped from our society.
If nobody had sex , then pretty soon (about 100 years tops ), then their would be no crime , No poverty , no overcrowding , no more poloution , many animals species would be allowed to thrive.
I clap my hands for Hillary Clitnon , and support her cause to wipe out Humanity .
Security Welfare ,Senator Clinton .
(/sarcasm)

Re:Boo for sex

[epaga]

I'm glad you wrote the (/sarcasm) tag, I would have thought you were serious. ... (/sarcasm)

Re:Boo for sex

[Enzo the Baker]

If everyone stops having sex, I hope they implement those Social Security private accounts.

Re:Boo for sex

[Anonymous Coward]

You couldn't be more wrong. Sex needs to stop, so we can start having clones!

Re:Boo for sex

[FidelCatsro]

Its scary the amount of times i have been moded troll or flame-bait for saying something like that , i now customarily put something in there to make it bleeding obvious i was not 100% serious

Playing devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, leaving aside for the moment the issue of who's making the comments (and yes, she's a divisive figure), I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that Rockstar are potentially in the wrong.

When they submitted this game for its ESRB rating, they did not include any notification the "hot chocolate" content. The result of this is that the ESRB rating was potentially inappropriate for the actual game. Now, it's true that in order to see this content, you have to hack around with the game a bit, but this doesn't fundamentally change the problem. Either Rockstar intended this as an "easter egg", in which case they deliberately mislead the ESRB, or else they did not intend it to ever be accessible, in which case they are incompetent.

A movies-style ratings system is the best hope that the videogames industry has of avoiding outright censorship. We're all (I presume, posting on slashdot) agreed that for games to be banned outright on the basis of their content, or for certain types of content (which is not covered by existing criminal laws) to be deemed completely taboo and out of bounds even for adult customers, is a bad thing. Depending on who you ask, opinions on an age-control system seem to range from "a good thing" to "bad, but tolerable".

However, avoiding precisely the kind of legislative blunt instruments that HRC is proposing here relies on the industry playing by the existing rules. If Rockstar has failed to do so, either through malice or incompetence, then they deserve censure.

Re:Playing devil's advocate

[It's Impossible]

"When they submitted this game for its ESRB rating, they did not include any notification the "hot chocolate" content. The result of this is that the ESRB rating was potentially inappropriate for the actual game. Now, it's true that in order to see this content, you have to hack around with the game a bit, but this doesn't fundamentally change the problem. Either Rockstar intended this as an "easter egg", in which case they deliberately mislead the ESRB, or else they did not intend it to ever be accessible, in which case they are incompetent."

I doubt that any major game title these days ships without a lot of unused cruft on the disc. Take any random game and you'll find all kinds of textures, sounds etc that were probably used at one point, replaced ingame but never removed from the asset tree.

There's just too much stuff in a game of this size to catch everything and pare back the shipping build to just what's "needed". And deadlines are scary enough that the unknown consequences of ripping stuff out may well compel you to leave it alone, even if you'd rather it wasn't there. This is probably true of every major software project.

In this case, Rockstar apparently left in some animation sequences and scripts. These things happen to be "sexual", but the fact of the matter is that somebody at Rockstar clearly said, at some point, "Let's not put this in the game."

And then some horny fan hacked it back into circulation.

In other words, if the ESRB has any business rating software, they ought to know that pretty much every game they review has baggage like this hidden away in the data files. Maybe it's rarely so scandalous, but it's there. Is it "incompetence", or is it rather none of the ESRB's concern, since it has no bearing whatsoever on the game as sold?

Re:Playing devil's advocate

[ElleyKitten]

Why would Rockstar have to show the ESRB stuff that wouldn't actually work on the final game? And how inappriopriate is an M rating, really? AO seems to only be for scary hentai games anyways, so I don't think they would have given it an AO anyways. I really don't understand why anyone cares about this stupid mod anyways.

>>>A movies-style ratings system is the best hope that the videogames industry has of avoiding outright censorship.

Videogames have a movie style ratings system! What do you think the ESRB is?

What happened to the village?

[lbmouse]

Clinton will hold a press conference to discuss legislative solutions to keep inappropriate video game content out of the hands of young people.

Isn't that the parents' responsibility?

I don't want the government raising my children. It was bad enough when Clinton wanted a village to do it... I definitely don't want a bunch of bureaucrats to do it unless they want to come over to change dirty diapers and clean up puke.

Re:What happened to the village?

[bleaknik]

I pay enough in taxes, I think they should provide those services. While they're at it, the pipework in my house need replacing, my garage needs cleaning, and my car needs an oil change...

This just in ...

[Tink2000]

Kids playing the GTA series of games, purchased most likely by their parents &/or guardians, cannot find pr0n on the internet, but have no problem finding the patch for this game that allows for crudely rendered sexual situations amid an already extremely violent video game. (Yes, I'm qualified to say it's violent, I've been playing it exclusively for almost a month now. For what it's worth, I find the whole girlfriend thing annoying and irritating.)

I'm still hoping for the off chance that HRC doesn't run for president in '08 and thereby assuring the American People of yet another Republican term.

Hillary the Centrist

[PeeAitchPee]

This is nothing more than Clinton trying to plant seeds which will (in her campaign directors' minds) help her appear not quite as left-leaning in '08. It's retarded but in general people in this country want to vote for someone who is perceived as "pro-morality" -- which ironically disqualifies just about every Senator and Governor in the USA.

Re:Hillary the Centrist

[Momoru]

Ugh, can't wait for the next election where the "big thing" will obviously be morals, since they think thats what won the last election...THAT should be fun.

The Debate:
Senator Clinton: "Well I go to church 5 times a week!"
Mayor Guiliani: "Oh yeah well I go 6 times a week!"

So sex is the only BAD thing to have in a game?

[harryman100]

What kind of message is this going to give to kids really? It seems the issue is this:

"There's no problem with a game containing large amounts of violence and illegal activity, PROVIDING there's no sex in it!"

Really, if I was a parent (which currently I'm not) I'd be much more worried about the violence and stuff in GTA, than any amount of sex. Maybe if it was rape, then I'd be a little more sympathetic to their point of view.

I don't pretend to understand the ratings system in america, but in good old Blighty, GTA is rated 18, which means you can't buy it if you're under 18, yet you're allowed to have sex in real life at the age of 16. (which brings up an interesting debate as to why porn films are also rated 18 - but thats not the topic)

Really, this is a non issue, and the world could do with lightening up a bit on the whole sex issue. There really is nothing offensive about it, and depending upon your religion (if any), can be viewed as a good healthy (if you are sensible) recreational activity...

Maybe

[Safety Cap]

He's bitter because ol' Bill doesn't give reach-arounds.

Re:Maybe

[AtariAmarok]

"He's bitter "

Ewww! That is much more than I wanted to know!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Elephant Dung and urine in a jar.

[jameskojiro]

if fine if it is used to defrace religeious stuff, but Rockstar games is fair fodder......????

I don't think so! I agree with Penn & Teller that what hillary is doing to Rockstar is BULLSHIT!!!!!

I don't understand.

[MeanderingMind]

Why is it that people can't come out and say exactly what the real problem is?

If we assume that Rockstar actually coded the sex scenes, and then removed access to them, how can we logically punish them for this? There isn't a secret button combination or set of actions you can use to activate the scenes, you have to hack the game to do it. How can we hold Rockstar responsible for this?

It seems to me the real reason this issue is being pushed is because Rockstar may have at one point intended to include scenes such as these in the game. The real reason why Rockstar is under fire (aside from being the de facto target of all video game ignoramus) is because Rockstar may have intended to put something like this in GTA:SA, and may still intend to do so in the future.

Honestly though, if the final version of the game contains no way in which these scenes can be accessed without using tools unavailible within the game, how can we blame Rockstar?

Re:I don't understand.

[Blakey Rat]

The ESRB rules specify that Rockstar must provide all the potentially objectionable material to their reviewers in an easy-to-view fashion. (i.e. don't make their reviewers play the entire game through 50 times to 'unlock' it.) Rockstar didn't submit the "hot coffee" minigame, and yet it shipped on the disk.

The question here is whether material on the disk, but normally inaccessible, should be rated by the ESRB... and it's a good question that needs to be answered. The ESRB is upset that it shipped, but Rockstar says they did nothing wrong, so obviously there needs to be some procedure in place to handle this situation.

Re:I don't understand.

[MeanderingMind]

Good clarification. Thanks. :)

Priorities

[Blitzenn]

Yea, this issue is so much more important than fixing the problem of people dying in this country because they cannot afford healthcare. I am so glad to see that Clinton cares more about what our children see rather than if they or ther parents can survive a curable illness because they cannot afford to see a doctor and or the medication to correct the problem.

Mature rating should allow nudity

[ironfroggy]

The M rating for video games is on par with movies' R rating. Both restrict anyone under the age of 17 and associate an amount of maturity that should be present to watch the film or play the game. Although, we won't get into how much maturity most 17 year olds have. So, if rated R movies can show nudity, why can't rated M games? That is all.

Re:Mature rating should allow nudity

[Anonymous Coward]

>So, if rated R movies can show nudity, why can't rated M games? That is all.

Because most american politicians still think that "videogames = kids only stuff".

Never mind the ratings that's been available, and Rockstar who've got the right rating for their games... You have to "protect" the children from sex! (but not from violence and murder... since they'll be fighting useless wars and dying for lies, better keep that crap on TV and games for them to see every day).

And Jack Thompson's reply....

[xerxesVII]

John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
305-666-4366
jackpeace@comcast.net

July 14, 2005

Open Letter to the Members of the Entertainment Software Association:

Activision, Inc.
Atari, Inc.
Buena Vista Games, Inc.
Capcom USA, Inc.
Crave Entertainment
Eidos Interactive
Electronic Arts
Her Interactive, Inc.
id Software
Konami Digital Entertainment America
LucasArts
Microsoft Corporation
Midway Games, Inc.
Namco Hometek, Inc.
Nintendo of America Inc.
NovaLogic, Inc.
SEGA of America, Inc.
Sony Computer Entertainment America
Square Enix, Inc.
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
THQ, Inc.
Ubisoft Entertainment, Inc.
Vivendi Universal Games
Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment Inc.
Wild Tangent

Dear ESA Members:

Today, United States Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, with initiatives she will announce at a 10 am news conference in our nation's capital, is acting decisively in furtherance of what for her has been a strong leadership role on these issues since Columbine--a tragedy caused in part by the violent video game industry. Millions of American parents should be thankful to the Senator for striking back against what can be fairly called "Grand Theft Innocence" at the expense of our children by only some within your industry.

It has been my privilege, as a lifelong Republican, to provide facts--not feelings--about the reckless practices of certain members of this industry, some of which are Members of the ESA, in the midst of responsible fact-gathering by Senator Rodham Clinton's staff. The Senator is not a newcomer on this issue. She has been an abiding and loyal advocate for parents who oppose predatory, fraudulent practices by some within your video game industry.

I am happy to help the Senator, just as I have worked with Democrats like Senator Joseph Lieberman and Washington State Representative Mary Lou Dickerson, as well as with fellow Republicans, for what for me have been nearly seven years of effort to try to get certain companies within the video game industry to start acting like good corporate citizens. Senator Rodham Clinton is today at the forefront of an issue that is not partisan in nature, nor should it be. The Republican Party would do well to wake up and realize that Senator Clinton is about the work that needs to be done. Today is a mere extension of her years of commitment. This is not politics. This is leadership.

As a lifelong Republican who ran against Janet Reno, I can note that whereas the largest chapter of the National Organization for Women, located in New York, has had me address them regarding the misogyny and violence against women depicted in the Grand Theft Auto games, the supposedly "family values" Republican President of the United States, George W. Bush, has consistently turned away from parents who have asked him to speak out against the entertainment industry's assault on our children.

The evening in January 2000 that I appeared on NBC Nightly News to talk about the link between violent games and Columbine, Tom Brokaw asked then Governor Bush about that link and what he as President would do about it? George Bush simply said "Parents just have to be better parents." He should trying telling that to my clients in Paducah whose three daughters were gunned down by 14-year-old video gamer Michael Carneal, who trained on Doom to become a more efficient killer. What did they, as parents, Mr. President, do wrong? Was sending their kids to school their mistake?

George Bush, as Governor of Texas, gave a state tax break to Id Software of Dallas, the makers of Doom, after Columbine, for Heaven's sake, and it is his Department of Defense which has subsidized with taxpayer dollars the creation of violent video games for teen consumption at the Institute for Creative Technologies at the University of Southern California. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has increased funding for this taxpayer

Re:And Jack Thompson's reply....

[Anonymous Coward]

what a big load of BS...

if we gamers dont start to vote for the right persons, soon we will only be playing nintendogs... (not that nintendogs seems bad anyway, but you get my point...)

Re:And Jack Thompson's reply....

[budicepenguin]

So, the entertainment industry should be held accountable for making violent video games? I suppose he also thinks gun manufacturers should be held accountable for making guns, too. God forbid we actually blame the people who committed the crime; let's just blame some industry scapegoat instead.

Re:And Jack Thompson's reply....

[goreking]

Wow...I never thought that I'd be in a position to feel the need to support Hilary Clinton (whom I've always considered a bit of a Lady MacBeth). But doesn't anyone in this forum get that it has absolutely zero to do with video games...and everything to do with a larger economic neccessity. For our economy to grow, both parents (remember that 52% divorce rate) work. Which means most kids grow up in environments where they are left alone, or with outside assistance or with neighbors &c. This means that there is no or little check on what those kids are doing for a go portion of the day. They are exposed to games, music and films. Television shows not designed for them (but incredibly alluring...Come on! You were a kid once!). I'm all for the freaking government to get off of our backs, especially when it comes to my tax dollars being spent on huge pork barrel projects designed only to enrich the "friends" (aka large corporate campaign donors) of congress. Hilary's gripe, is to say...okay...who can we call upon to show some dignity...some class. Now she may disguise it, after all, she's a Clinton gearing up for a presidential campaign and trying to center herself (thus making her more attractive to the bible-eating middle) by railing against obscenity. But the true fact, the undeniable fact is that Rockstar's games are played, marketed and geared to children...M rating or not. Their promos, their ad campaigns...everything. Don't believe it? Open your eyes. Look at the television shows that they sponsor...look at the times of day those ads are on. Look at the magazines that Rockstar chooses to advertise in. It is no accident that they sell so many games. Now, I know the parents have to put down their foot every once in a blue moon (fucking parents today are way too fucking indulgent...if you ask me)...but I think it is also okay to expect a modicum of respect to the children of this country (or is that company) by respecting where and how you advertise your entertainment material. That's just some more Commmon Sense.

Oh, come on

[ALeavitt]

Hasn't anybody considered the fact that downloading this patch requires the internet skills necessary to locate the patch, and then the computing skills necessary to apply it? If a kid can find the Hot Coffee mod on the net, he/she can find porn on the net. Hell, most people who couldn't find the Hot Coffee mod could find porn on the net. But censoring the intarweb was sooooo 90s, and it didn't succeed, so now they're going after video games.
As a complete non-sequitir, does anybody know of a country where the right to free speech actually exists, and the government doesn't tell the citizens what they can and can't choose to view?

Re:Oh, come on

[Jtheletter]

As a complete non-sequitir, does anybody know of a country where the right to free speech actually exists, and the government doesn't tell the citizens what they can and can't choose to view?

Do me a favor, if you ever do find such a place, send me a note and I'll be on the first boat with you.

[rant] I am so sick of prudes in power letting us all know that things that make them feel icky should be illegal. Liberals tend to say to these people 'if you don't like it, change the channel' to which the response is usually something along the lines of 'that doesn't make the issues go away, it's still out there, the sex/hate/violence/lewd/unpopular/misunderstood thing is still there for someone to view and that's no ok with me.' But they never stop to think that the entire reason it's there, publicly available is because some people want it, some people don't have a problem with it. There's not some secret think tank of deviants producing uncomfortable-for-some material just to muck with those conservatives. There is a demand, and hence a supply. What good is freedom of speech, security in one's effects, and freedom of worship if the minute one group decides something is inappropriate, it therefore must truly be, and is only appreciated by some shadowy, poorly defined minority? Who do they think is creating/consuming this stuff? Terrorists? Their own constituents (not the ones they relate or pander to, obviously) must be, otherwise there would be no market and no product. Have we learned nothing from our own history? When are we going to objectively look at the outcomes of any prohibition of 'morally questionable' goods/services and recognize that in just about every instance there were fewer problems before things were regulated than after. (ala War on drugs/poverty/terrorism/alcohol prohibition/etc)

This is not to say that every fiendish desire should be tolerated, things like child abuse, rape, murder, vandalism are unacceptable - but that is because they cause direct harm to others. In today's [American] society there is a stunning lack of personal culpability and self-ownership. And I think these two go hand in hand. If the state says you cannot die when you want, eat what you want, ingest whatever chemical you want, must relinquish any possession to the state (practically on a whim given the recent ruling about imminent domain for commercial interests), then why should anyone feel resonsible for what they do? We are pummelled daily with the notion that our selves are not our own, so if I do not own myself then who is to blame for any of my actions should I stray from the narrowly defined norm of society? If you're not hurting anyone else, not infringing anyone else's rights or property and the only person you are [potentially/possibly] harming through your actions is yourself then it is no one's right to intervene. Unless you do not own yourself, in which case when you hurt yourself, you hurt the state. And that is why the politicians care and legislate that which makes them feel icky, because it must keep the herd in shape for the machine of state to consume at its whim.

I think I got into a bit of a rant, so let me get back on topic. Damn you Hillary Clinton and your sexual-frustration projectionist style of governing. Go read an offensive book by a dead author and try to figure out who to rail against in vain. Maybe then you'll learn that being angered by another's choices or expressions is useless, because in the end it doesn't matter so long as the only harm they do you is that icky feeling that your own conscious produces. Maybe you should legislate your own damn feelings since they seem to cause you so much harm. [/rant]

Re:Oh, come on

[digitallife]

I reposted your comment on a spanking new blog of mine http://tickletrap.blogspot.com/ and just wanted to make sure that was ok with you. If not let me know!

Re:Oh, come on

[garett_spencley]

" But censoring the intarweb was sooooo 90s, and it didn't succeed, so now they're going after video games."

Oh, they are very much still trying to censor the Interweb.

Re:Oh, come on

[DavidTC]

But they never stop to think that the entire reason it's there, publicly available is because some people want it, some people don't have a problem with it. There's not some secret think tank of deviants producing uncomfortable-for-some material just to muck with those conservatives. There is a demand, and hence a supply.

Oh, they know there's a demand. They want that stuff, but know they must never never never look at it because it is Evil(TM).

And if they can't have it, no one can. Plus, banning it makes it harder for them to get it.

Re:Oh, come on

[Jtheletter]

Oh, they know there's a demand. They want that stuff, but know they must never never never look at it because it is Evil(TM).
And if they can't have it, no one can. Plus, banning it makes it harder for them to get it.

Excellent points, thanks!

Re:Oh, come on

[Anonymous Coward]

poverty is a morally questionable good/service that's in demand!?

Re:Oh, come on

[Wilson_6500]

Let's see... USA... Soviet Russia... Nope. Can't think of one.

Re:Oh, come on

[Unlikely_Hero]

There are few posts on slashdot that I would give a 5 to. This is one of them (IF I HAD MOD POINTS DAMMIT!)

Re:Oh, come on

[mink]

From all the ones I have encountered, they are a more of "do as I say not as I do" bunch. A priest who endlessly speaks about how evil sex (outside of procreation) is he gets caught abusing the alterboys, or the supposed devout couple who leads life outside of sunday services that aproaches the biblical description of soddom and gamora.

Thats typically the types I see in the world.

Oh I forgot the ones who preach hate, or abuse the poor/elderly in the name of God.

Attack on 2 fronts

[shoptroll]

They're only doing this cause they want another nail to put GTA in the coffin with.

For all the over-the-top stuff in the game, it is a piece of smart satirical writing (listen to the radio stations and look at the adverts in the game if you don't know what I mean).

GTA has been able to evade every politician's attempts to nail it to the wall with the violence issue. Now they have another weapon to blast at it with.

Still, common sense says: it's M. Kids under 17 shouldn't have it, and those that do have it and have used the patch have probably seen worse on satellite/cable tv.

It has to be said...

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't somebody please think of the children!?

Give me a fucking break.

[bartyboy]

GTA is rated M, or 17+. It says so right on the box. This is NOT a game for kids.

Believe it or not, there are many parents out there who don't allow their kids to watch movies or play games because they have either too much violence or too much sex. They don't want to expose their kids to what in their view is not a good influence. They use the ratings on movies and video games, and often check out the material themselves.

They know that children need guidence and that the kids may not understand many of the things that seem obvious to adults.
Sure, there are some parents who believe that children should be exposed to everything and draw their own conclusions about their experiences, but these people are a minority.

So the "This is America, violence is OK but sex is not" statement simply isn't true when it comes to most parents. It's used by politicians who are trying to appeal to a specific demographic.

Re:Give me a fucking break.

[clausiam]

So the "This is America, violence is OK but sex is not" statement simply isn't true when it comes to most parents. It's used by politicians who are trying to appeal to a specific demographic.

I disagree. True, there are still a lot of commonsense parents luckily, but as a "trend" or "national average" the US is much more body-phobic and violence-accepting than European nations (I've lived 28 years in Europe and 10 in the US).

Couple of examples:

• The amount of violence accepted in common TV shows vs. the outrage over Janet Jacksons exposed nipple
• An image on CNN.com of naked abused iraqi prisoners leashed and piled up with their butts blurred so as not to offend! Apparently the behaviour displayed is not so bad as a bit of nudity.

It's not a matter of parents directly stating that violence is ok and nudity/sex/the body is bad but that is the signal being sent by what is accepted and what is not.

Re:Give me a fucking break.

[Cornflake917]

So the "This is America, violence is OK but sex is not" statement simply isn't true when it comes to most parents. It's used by politicians who are trying to appeal to a specific demographic.

I disagree. Although you do make a good point in reminding us that the game is rated M, and there are many parents who are reasonable when it comes to keeping innapropriate games away from their kids. But, I think Americans are at least slightly obsessed with violence. In Star Wars III you see heads getting lopped off all over the place, but it gets a PG-13. But any movie with a small sex scene is an automatic R. Network Television is filled with violent shows. But when Janet's nipple gets 1 second of airtime, people start screaming bloody murder. In my opinion, I think it should be the opposite. In general, sex is a GOOD thing, as violence is generally a BAD thing (IMHO). Many Americans see it differently if not having completely opposite views when trying to protect their kids. The U.S. isn't the only culture that has this view though.

Re:Give me a fucking break.

[bartyboy]

It's not a matter of parents directly stating that violence is ok and nudity/sex/the body is bad but that is the signal being sent by what is accepted and what is not.

Like you said, it's not the parents who cause an uproar when a nipple is shown on tv. Politicians propelled by special interest groups make the most noise.

Sexuality is present on North American tv. Companies use sexy women in bikinis to sell products, but they don't use nudity. The music videos are full of hoochie mamas. What most politicians and parents want is not a ban on sexuality, but having the ability to choose when their child sees nudity (and in some cases, sexual situations). This explains why we have ESRB ratings, movie ratings and why many people watching a football game with their kids don't want to see an unexpected nipple.

By the way, the BBC, like CNN, had no problems showing reported the pictures from the prisoner abuse scandal. Apparently displaying this behaviour does not equal endorsing it.

Social Conservatives

[boot1780]

First she's teaming up with Newt Gingrich and now this. The point is to curry favor with social conservatives before her inevitable run for president. Just the sound of her name makes the fundamentalists empty out their wallets and pocketbooks. Look for more of this to come.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

We have over 1000 dead in Iraq, we have thousands and thousands permanently crippled, al-Qaeda is doing infinitely better @ recruiting than our own Army... yet, the biggest problem she can tackle is video games?

WHAT THE FUCK!!

Re:zerg

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

Now, now, if they are somehow recruiting 1 person for every 0 persons we recruit, then it's infinatly better, at this point I think to say, that it might be finitely better.

From the Hot Coffee "Hacker"

[XXIstCenturyBoy]

http://patrickw.gtagames.nl/ :
"All the contents of this mod was already available on the original disks. Therefor the scriptcode, the models, the animations and the dialogs by the original voice-actors were all created by RockStar. The only thing I had to do to enable the mini-games was toggling a single bit in the main.scm file. (Of course it was not easy to find the correct bit). The Nude models that are used as a bonus in the Quick action version of the mod, were also already present on the original disk. But all this material is completely inaccesible in an unmodded version of the game. It can therefor not be considered a cheat, easter-egg or hidden feature. But is most probably just leftover material from a gameplay idea that didn't make the final release. I would really like to stress that this material is only accessible after willfully applying the hot coffee mod (or something similar) to the game."

So politician looking for the latest fad to go against should shut the hell up. This is leftover code. Whats next? Going after Microsoft because they reputedly have swear words in the comments of Windows's source?

I wouldnt bet on Rockstar.

[AzraelKans]

Let me see, this happens America Aka JesusLand, The country that voted "twice" for a guy with an IQ of 80 who sent their sons (not HIS sons though) to a bloody war in the middle of the fucking desert to the wrong country (according Michael Moore at least) and allowed terrorism to their doorsteps in the process, instead of voting for a guy who didnt opossed to gay marriage.

Hmm.. Id say Rockstar is pretty much screwed.

Rockstar just move to Canada and get over with it, next time you wont have to lock the sex game. ;)

p.s. Whats this fixation with politicians and GTA anyway? havent they noticed god of war has twice the blood, none of the choice to be bad or not and a completely unlocked sex game? or what about the sex scenes in fable? the guy game (which are real girls btw) or playboy mansion? those arent locked either.

Or if you want to go there, what about the nude patches for DOAVB or Tomb raider?

Re:I wouldnt bet on Rockstar.

[el_munkie]

Let me see, this happens America Aka JesusLand, The country that voted "twice" for a guy with an IQ of 80

Our alternative was a dude with a similar level of intelligence.

... who sent their sons (not HIS sons though)

He has no sons.

to a bloody war in the middle of the fucking desert to the wrong country (according Michael Moore at least) and allowed terrorism to their doorsteps in the process, instead of voting for a guy who didnt opossed to gay marriage.

Standard slashdot rhetoric: It's Bush's fault that Rockstar is in trouble, even though it's Hillary Clinton who is apparantly leading the crusade. Bitch about Iraq and gay marriage, two topics completely unrelated to this, to remind the other hive-mind Democrats that Bush is "teh suck" and watch the positive mod points roll in.

Re:I wouldnt bet on Rockstar.

[Anonymous Coward]

My apologies to you that I don't have the ability to mod you +5 Insightful and/or +5 Tell-It-Like-It-Is. After all, here on /. anything that's anti-Bush is just about guaranteed to be Insightful. I'm surprised that the Michael Moore reference alone didn't give him an automatic +5 Insighful. Maybe that's because he didn't bash Fox News. That would have been the clincher.

Actually it has been her party

[Shivetya]

that goes after this type of material more often.

However I will agree that Hillary is trying to gain press attention in a particular area so she can sell herself to middle America.

Whether or not this is something that will help her is immaterial, the key issue is the opponent she chose cannot withstand her position in Government or the media draw she has. In other words, she is playing a safe bet here.

substitue legislation for the necessity of parenti

[dpilot]

Not that I approve of "substitute legislation for the necessity of parenting," but if we've substituted day-care and latchkeys for parents, a lot of the damage to parenting has already been done.

Back in the 50's we had the classic "Leave it to Beaver" parenting model, where Dad went to work, and Mom stayed home with the kids. Perhaps Mom was swilling the liquor and playing poker with her friends, but mine wasn't, and AFAIK, the other moms in the neighborhood weren't. We had active and involved moms who enforced values, (to put it in current-speak) kissed skinned knees, and got us back up on our bikes, etc.

Fast-forward to today, where the norm is either two incomes, or a single working income. Young kids are in day-care - presumably the low-cost provider, and older kids lock the doors after getting home from school. If parents get home at 5:00 and put the kids to bed at 9:00, that's 4 hours, 5 if you include an hour in the morning. You can "teach" all you want during that 4-5 hours, but that's dwarfed by the "imprint time" with the sitter for small kids and classmates/media for larger kids. But then again, two wrongs don't make a right. Further legislation doesn't correct the problem of busy parents, it only tries to hide it.

Not that I think 2 working parents is always bad. Some families can handle it. I just don't think it's good as the "standard model" for our society. But from the Government's point of view, it's great! Put Mom to work and you also partially finance a day-care worker, collecting taxes from both. You also find less cooking-from-scratch and more prepared foods, with attendant higher corporate profits (taxes, again) and job creation rates.

Generational warfare

[petrus4]

Attention Boomers. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but despite the amount you might wish it to be the contrary, the 1950s are well and truly over. Deal with it. Yes, the world is a lot more secular, and a lot less racist, and yes, the gays and wiccans have ascended from the sewers and are now legally able to walk among the rest of us. On the other side of the sexual hypocrisy-related fence, a man (or woman) can now actually be caught and criminally charged for molesting their children. Horrifying concepts, I know...but if I've learned to acclimatise to it, so can you. Postmodernism and moral relativism have inherited the earth, and like it or not, there ain't no going back.

That of course is the crux of what this is about...people in Hillary's generational bracket having delusional recollections of the era of their own childhood, and wish to attempt to force said delusions upon the rest of the world. With the dawn of each new day I seem to read yet another report of an attempt at fascist control by some beurecratic 50+ year old suffering from the effects of advanced neurological decomposition. I've said it before, and I'll say it again...Hillary and the rest of her geriatric, sexually deprived ilk need to be in nursing homes...NOT in the halls of government.

Re:Generational warfare

[Brandybuck]

Postmodernism and moral relativism have inherited the earth

If moral relativism has inherited the earth, then where do you get off telling Hillary that her morality is wrong? There is no more right or wrong, so how dare you tell her that she's wrong!

Re:Generational warfare

[petrus4]

I do think fascist behaviour is wrong...or at the very least, that it is likely to produce harmful effects.

I know, you're likely to turn around and call me a hypocrite for that...but put it this way. The GTA series genuinely are sociopathic, violent games...I don't think anybody would argue too much with that. The difference between myself and Hillary however is that I believe that each individual should have the right to decide for him or herself if they want to be exposed to such material. Hillary and others like her, on the other hand, believe that the State should decide what is appropriate for *everyone*...and the point is that she isn't necessarily any better able to make that decision for other people than said people are themselves.

Stupid American gvt.

[crystalattice]

Regardless of whether it was in the game originally or not, why does it matter? Kids can get better sexual scenes and situations from TV. Look at Desperate Housewives or Sex in the City. Geez, even Family Guy is borderline. But I guess it's okay for kids to see an "adult situation" but if a nipple appears, the line has been crossed.

Apart from the fact that it's not in the base install version of the game, the fact that you have to d/l the patch and tweak the game means the person is completely conscious of his actions. It's not like it's popping in a porno movie. Apart from "cuz I can", why would someone want to see crummy, pixelated cyber-sex? Just look under dad's bed. :)

The better question the gvt. should be asking is why children have the game. I highly doubt it's because the game store sold it to the kid directly. I remember being reminded that Mortal Kombat was rated "M", so obviously the system can work. If parents can't be bothered to check the game's rating or monitor what their kids are doing, then maybe CPS should be called and take the kids away; I would say the parents are guilty of neglect.

Re:Stupid American gvt.

[crystalattice]

My wife just gave me this tidbit. She used to work at Target and a kid wanted to buy a rated "M" game. His mom was right there with him. My wife told the kid he couldn't buy the game because he wasn't old enough. The mom got pissed off because "the ratings don't mean anything"; apparently she felt that the kid should be able to buy anything he wanted.

My wife told the mother that if she wanted to buy the game for her son, then that was a different matter, but he couldn't buy the game. My wife essentially told the mother, "If you don't care enough about your son to know what he's buying, playing, and doing, that's not my concern. You're his mother and I can't stop you from buying this game. But I can stop him."

Hmmm. there are no violent videogames.

[AtariAmarok]

"Defense which has subsidized with taxpayer dollars the creation of violent video games"

I've about had it with these false and misleading descriptions. The only thing close violent videogames are those web web sites where you can click a mouse and shoot a living deer with a rifle halfway across the country.

Noone is ever harmed by these videogames. How can they be called violent, if no violence occurs? The games can depict violence, or simulate the look of it, but they certainly are not violent.

Fox News watcher are you?

[infonography]

Tisk Tisk Tisk

Re:Fox News watcher are you?

[stinerman]

Well, I voted for Badnarik because Nader wasn't an option on the ballot in Ohio.

I hope that helps.

Re:Fox News watcher are you?

[infonography]

I will concede that one, I once voted for Ron Paul. as I recall a lot of other people strangely didn't get votes in Ohio be they on the ballot or not.

Re:Fox News watcher are you?

[bckrispi]

So when did Ohio stop allowing write-in's on their ballots? I voted Dave Mustaine for president in '96.

Re:Fox News watcher are you?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Dave Mustaine would be a good president. Here's an excerpt from an interview on metal-temple.com:

And I think that because there's so much bullshit going on with self-advancement in America that people are trying to make what Bush is doing look bad. Now, am I a republican? No. Am I an American? Yeah. Do I consider myself to be patriotic? Yes. Do I think the war with Iraq was wrong? No! Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. He was a dictator and he tortured people.

Rick (Hot Man on Man Action) Santorum

[infonography]

It one of the worst whores in the GOP. That Man has no restraint. He makes me wish for the days when Phil Gramm or Richard M Nixon was still around. Slimy politics is one thing but this guy just reeks.

Kerry

[SewersOfRivendell]

Sooner another four years of that psuedoRepublican Bill Clinton than Kerry. Kerry broke only one campaign promise: that he would fight for us if there were apparent voting problems. He conceded long before there was time to figure out whether there were problems. For that, he'll burn in hell with Shrub and Cheney forever.

Kerry can suck my ass.

Yeah, I know this is offtopic. And I agree with the actual point of the parent post.

But what will she do after the election?

[AHumbleOpinion]

She represents the worst of the Democrats in that she doesn't have any positions that won't change based on tomorrow's opinion poll.

You mean until elected? Her entire Senate career is grooming and posturing. After winning a presidential election it's somewhat likely we return to the '92-3 agenda. The agenda that prompted voters to put the Republicans in charge of the House for the first time in what, forty something years? Supposedly she was angry over Bill getting the voters message and moving the agenda towards the center. Hopefully she eventually got the message but I'm worried that wshat we see today is still just posturing.

Re:But what will she do after the election?

[stinerman]

No one really knows.

I just find it funny that the Republican strategy of campaigning to their base has worked very well and the Democrats haven't picked up on that.

Re:But what will she do after the election?

[jebell]

I just find it funny that the Republican strategy of campaigning to their base has worked very well and the Democrats haven't picked up on that.

Sure they have. The Democrats cater to their base, too. Enter Howard Dean as chairman of the DNC, Nancy Pelosi as House minority leader, etc.

Re:But what will she do after the election?

[Golias]

Personally, I'm not too worried. Regardless of her agenda, Hillary in the White House with the Republicans holding both houses would be a lot more like the last six years of Bill Clinton than the first two.

Apart from letting the .com baloon swell a bit too far out of control and being a bit asleep at the wheel regarding the then-subtle rise of terrorism, those were six pretty good years. I'll take four (or eight) more like that any day.

Re:But what will she do after the election?

[mooingyak]

Personally, I'll take any scenario where the White House and Congress are controlled by different parties.

Re:But what will she do after the election?

[stinerman]

1) Dean has no bearing on party policy. His job is to keep the grassroots liberals silent while making sure they're still donating their money to the party.

2) Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman from San Francisco. By their standards, she's pretty moderate. Making her minority leader, once again, doesn't mean anything.

Look at Presidental races. The last liberal the Democrats nominated was in 1988 (Dukakis). The Republicans made the mistake of toying with a moderate in '96 (Dole) and he got hammered.

If the Democrats had a similar platform in terms of how much it resonated with their base it would include:

Abolition of the death penalty
Universal health care
Slashed military spending (by at least 33%)
Immediate withdrawl from Iraq
Increased TANF/Welfare Spending

Your average Democrat is somewhere just to the right of Dean. The average Democratic politician is simliar to John Kerry.

Re:But what will she do after the election?

[hal2814]

I think you're missing the point of the article. Hillary IS campaigning to the Republican base.

Re:But what will she do after the election?

[AHumbleOpinion]

The Republicans made the mistake of toying with a moderate in '96 (Dole) and he got hammered.

Dole's negatives had nothing to do with being a moderate. It was his age and health, far younger men have grow old very fast while in the oval office. Dole just did not "seem" like he would finish the job.

Re:But what will she do after the election?

[Dachannien]

1) Dean has no bearing on party policy. His job is to keep the grassroots liberals silent while making sure they're still donating their money to the party.

Actually, Dean's job now is to be as left-wing crackpot as possible (since it's fairly obvious after the 2004 primary that he's not going to be presidential material anytime soon), to make it easier for the also-very-liberal Hillary Clinton to seem centrist in time for 2008.

Re:But what will she do after the election?

[Dachannien]

Dole was also horribly stiff and unfriendly during the 1996 campaign, compared to the ultra-charismatic Bill Clinton as well as to himself in his numerous TV appearances after he lost the election. He probably still wouldn't have won, but he would at least have had a better showing if he'd just been himself a little more during the campaign.

Re:But what will she do after the election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Increased TANF/Welfare Spending

Thanks, but no thanks. My money is much better spent on myself and others who are truly in need rather than my no-talent, lazy-ass, ex-sister-in-law. And I would rather that I be the one making the decision about where my money goes rather than the no-talent, lazy-ass government employee who sleeps half the day, and stamps "Approved" on welfare checks every day.

Re:But what will she do after the election?

[Shihar]

Great... The dems and the reps can legislate morality together. Oh merry day. That said, I actually agree in princple. A nice ultra-leftist president with a slim republican majority in both houses. With any luck they wouldn't be able to get anything done. Really though, I think the best solution is simply to change the voting system. Don't do anything fancy, just add one more canidate to all the lists. Let "no" be a canidate. I would vote for "no".

Next on her list...

[signingis]

Paint sets. We can't have minors running around buying paint and painting pictures of naked women! Think of the children!!!

I'm confused.

[SpicyLemon]

Shooting and killing people in order to steal their stuff is good?
And some skin is bad?

George Carlin said it best when he said, "I'd rather watch two people making love than two people trying to kill one another."

I'm just confused as to why parents are appauled that their children might watch porn in THIS game. If porn showed up in a game like "Sesame Street: Count with the Count" then I could understand the upset, but Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas? I wonder what would happen if porn showed up in some older game?

I think...

[Kumorigoe]

...that everyone is forgetting the key factor in all of this. Mom and Dad If parents would OPEN UP THEIR ****ING EYES and PAY ATTENTION to what their children are doing, we wouldn't have HALF the problems we do with the age range that we're talking about here.

This just in...

[retinaburn]

Apparently it has been a long time since Hillary actually had sex.

Seriously its graphical sex (sex portrayed with graphics), not graphic sex. They don't even have anatomically correct parts for intercourse.

'Bout Time

[TheoB]

Rockstar has to be held responsible for anything that can be done with their game, even if they've made significant efforts to make any changes to their code impossible, such as not creating any community mod tools, using largely proprietary data formats, and never creating a "Sex-Based minigame" to begin with. Heads will roll!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the courthouse to sue the government for that penis someone spraypainted under the 405 overpass. Didn't they realize when they built the highway that CHILDREN might see that wall?

Regardless... Hmmm

[bleaknik]

You raise an interesting point. Citing Dictionary.com

[Probably blend of irrespective, and regardless.] Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

I commend your syntactical capabilities. And thus forth, my behaviour will corrected.

Going a little too far

[dtfinch]

You need to download a third party mod to access the game. It's no different to the user than it would be if the mode was the game. The mod even adds nude skins, not part of the original game. Rockstar can't control that.

Third Party Politics

[stinerman]

I know some really liberal dems that hate her for no reason and would likly vote republican or not vote if she ran.

Congrats. You've stumbled on the reason why 3rd parties will not take hold in the USA. Your very liberal Democrats will vote for an assumed conservative Republican rather than vote for any liberal minor party candidate. Apparently voting for Nader over Clinton is throwing your vote away, but voting for $REPUBLICAN over Clinton is stategic voting.

Re:Third Party Politics

[AvitarX]

FWIW
From now on I am voting where I want too.

After voting gore (who I saw speak once, when Clinton was running, and it was like 30 seconds of hate for an hour) who I hated and Kerry who I was nuetral to and having both votes thrown away and wasted I figure I might as well throw my vote away on someone I like.

Ah, the "freedom loving" Liberals to the rescue

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's all the anti-conservative folk who come out in droves saying it's only the "religious right" that looks for reasons to expand government interference and control?

It's the Demos and states they control where personal freedoms are not just "at risk" but already infringed. Look to the states that already "enjoy" the newest definition of "eminent domain"..CA beng cheif among them. Laws to prevent you from doing things judged to be "bad" abound. So called "dangerous" rights (2nd Amendment) severely curtailed, "for the good of the children". Freedom of speech, unless someone is a self described "minority" and gets "offended"..then the article, expose or investigative report is removed and called "racism" and the corruptions hidden. Anti-government talk encouraged now but soon to change when the republicans are out. Wait and see.

Because it'll be considered "violent" and "harmful" when it's anti Democrat, and will be investigated, curtailed, etc. Rockstar will only be the beginning.

Jaded

[InternetVoting]

How jaded are we that we can't even draw a line? I'm not saying I'm for or against pornographic content, but if Rockstar is going to go so far as to program a sex game (for all of you who don't know google it. there are some rather graphic videos of the game's scene), then can we not just label it AO (Adults Only) ? This is a legitimate ESRB rating. Are we against all regulation? I for one will not join this technical militia! (Insert partial sarcasm)

"Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity."

Whether or not you agree on rating systems at all can we not just agree that it has qualified for that rating all along?

Oh, and while we're at it, can we lay of the lawmakers for doing something 90% of their constituents agree with? Them's the breaks in a democratic republic.

Re:Jaded

[Starsmore]

The ESRB rates a game based on what will be seen during the course of normal gameplay. Furthermore, the ESRB doesn't even do it themselves, they have a panel of Joe and Jane Average, parents and doctors and people completely unrelated to video games (IE: the fucking idiots that just buy a game for their kids without looking at the ratings) watch a video of normal gameplay, in order to rate a game.

Demanding that San Andreas now be rated AO (Adults Only) because of content that is not a part of normal play and specifically requires a modification (whose legality is questionable), is inane. It's like demanding that the newest PG-rated DVD release be rerated NC-17, for all time, because the DVD has deleted scenes of a couple of people (real, unclothed people, no less, not two fully clothed computer generated polygonal models) having sex.

Do you even stop and listen to yourself? Rockstar made the content, and then cut it out of normal gameplay. The modding aside, this is like people freaking out over the deleted scenes in a movie's DVD release. It wasn't in the fully movie. It is optional as to whether someone sees is. And if you are a parent who is pissed about your under-17 kid seeing this content, he shouldn't be playing the game anyway, and you need to go refresh yourself on the rating system.

Re:Jaded

[InternetVoting]

I listen to myself just fine. Maybe you should question more of your reading skill. I said:

"Whether or not you agree on rating systems at all can we not just agree that it has qualified for that rating all along?"

But nice rant about "normal play." I really liked all the bold parts. Maybe if I had bolded more things you would have read my comments before responding. Thanks.

Wrong ex-first lady

[UserChrisCanter4]

Shouldn't this be Tipper's territory?

Re:Wrong ex-first lady

[fonetik]

Wait... isn't that the ex-second lady? Or vice-first lady? (Or, more accurately, the should-have-been-ex-or-current-first-lady-if-it-wa sn't-for-mass-voter-fraud-in-florida? It looks great on the business cards.) What do you call the vice president's wife, officially?

Re:Wrong ex-first lady

[UserChrisCanter4]

I think she is actually called the first lady, as well.

Re:substitue legislation for the necessity of pare

[Anonymous Coward]

"Back in the 50's we had the classic "Leave it to Beaver" parenting model, "

That was only classic during the fifties, and perhaps a generation before. Before that, the reason a mother stayed home was because taking care of the house was full time backbreaking labour. Mothers didn't have time to take care of skinned knees and put kids back on their bikes. The kids were tossed outdoors to wander or working on keeping the house together. Families were huge, with the older kids taking care of the younger.

The whole nuclear family thing is a crazy idea that came about because of a sudden rise in affluence allowing individual family homes, the invention of labour saving machines, and the proliferation of birth control. We're still figuring out how the hell a nuclear family is supposed to provide some sort of social, community awareness for the children, regardless of whether the mother stays at home. If every house has 1.7 kids, how does a child learn to care about more than 3.7 people?

Your "standard model" was a post-war daydream. It didn't exist before WWII, and it didn't even manage to last out the generation. The first children of that dream were the ones hanging out at Haight-Ashbury. If you think it was ever traditional reality, you've been believing too much heavily censored early American television.

well said

[CaptPungent]

I am a parent of two children myself. A soon-to-be 6yr old and a soon-to-be one yr old.

My son is in major Star Wars mode right now. He's obsessed with ALL of the movies, from Ep1 to Ep6. I myself am very much a fan of all 6 movies. I was there opening week for Ep 1-3. However, my wife and I opted to leave our son home for Ep3 knowing the increased violence. There were parts we weren't comfortable letting him see. After about a month of discussing with him and warning him that there were bad parts in the movie, and explaining to him what happened and how those bad things happened because Anakin was a bad person in this movie, he understood it very well and enjoyed the movie (I did cover his eyes when Anakin was being burnt alive though. There's some things I don't want him to see). Because we had the chance to know it wasn't outright appropriate, and we could view it and discuss the 'problem areas' with him beforehand.

That said, I've been playing the GTA series since its first game, on the PS1. I DO NOT let my son watch me play this last installment, and I do not let him play it either. I don't feel its appropriate for him at all. However, as pointed out, children cannot buy this game as is. Pushing legislation or taking action is not needed here. What is needed is moronic parents to preview material before giving it to their kids. I'm not one of those goodness-nazi parents, there's just some things I don't want my son to see at age 5. I can judge when he is mature enough to handle it. Parents going ape-shit over this are, simply, IMO, bad parents.

Common sence ?

[bruunb]

Does anyone in the US have, what we in Europe call, Common Sence???

I think that all the legislative work in the US is becoming too much. Why does anyone want to make legislation on what's on a CD/DVD?
In worst case the US will be a place where you talk to a lawyer about how you can create a CD/DVD without breaking any laws...

If the US makes one law about sex or rather sex related to public material eg. books, posters, movies (et. al.) and games and what have you, that you can buy in a store that states that you have to be over 15 (don't recall the minimum age for entering into "adulthood" in the US).
It't would be a lot easier for us in the "east" to figure out why a movie that shows a naked leg is PG-13 rated (or what the censorship is for nudity).... most non US movies don't get clasified as p0rn if there are a nude person or people in it.

My main reason for "complaining" is that what happens in the US is being copied here in our country,Denmark, where people used to be able to talk to each other without caling the police to settle a dispute... we don't even have the "self defence" thing where you have the "right" to shoot an uninvited "guest" in you home.

And our, danish, politicians invited the freaking terrorist Bush the other day and shut down the roads so I had to drive 45km (apx. 30mp) extra to get to the other side of the highway (I live between to off/on ramps 1km apart) and the danish police put in 10k (tenthousand) man-hours to "protect" that stupid imbecil of a president who don't even know that imports comes from outside the country... hence the word import.

ahhhhh.... common sence, especially when there are kids around will make the world a better place to live in instead of a place where you can't look to your left because some people made a law agains leftwing politically engaged people... er.. that was a few years back, but anyhows.. I hope that some day common sence will prevail over single minded people that can't see beyond the tip of their noses.

Re:Common sence ?

[ildon]

We have it. We just call it common *sense*.

Already had it...

[bigbigbison]

He website has an announcement that sounds like she already had the press conference.

What a Fuckwit

[rAiNsT0rm]

This psycho, butch, dog-bitch clinton needs to be removed from any place of empowerment. I personally can't wait until she runs and loses horribly so maybe she will slink off to the hole she crawled out of. And take her hairy-armpitted, lezzy, liberal followers with her.

It probably reminds her of 'ol Bill bangin away on all the ho's he could get his greasy hands on.

Now we know why Bill's sleeping around.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever happened to parenting?

I would like to meet the parents of 12-year-olds and younger that are letting their children play these games. And after I say hello, I am taking their kids away.

Why aren't parents being responsible? For christ's sake, these games are RATED. You don't have to a rocket surgeon to figure it out. It says right on the back "Animated violence, Adult situations, etc."

These are the people that make America look bad. And Hilary Clinton is a dolt. We're talking about fully clothed sex. It's the equivalent of middle-school dryhumping.

Hilary, take my advice. When I dress like an icy bitch, I try to look a little less constipated.

Not like they killed a puppy?

[Rimbo]

If Rockstar actually left the content in that wasn't the smartest thing they've ever done, but it's not like they killed a puppy.

You're not too familiar with the United States, are you?

Remember, this was the country initially founded by Separatists, the country that put the "duh" in "fundamentalism."

The country where you can have all kinds of death and explosions and only get a PG-13 rating, but show one human penis and you get slapped with NC-17.

Strange turn of events

[BlightThePower]

I was of the understanding the Mrs Clinton was rather good at overlooking sexual escapades right under her nose.

Re:Strange turn of events

[Anonymous Coward]

I was of the understanding the Mrs Clinton was rather good at overlooking sexual escapades right under her nose.

I was of the understanding that it wasn't Mrs Clinton's nose under which the sexual escapades were, uh, escapading. ;)

Re:Strange turn of events

[BlightThePower]

Hehehe. That was much better than my comment really. I'll set them up, you put them away huh.

Clearly they know...

[*weasel]

because they're banking on that same press to advertise their own political 'values'.

If this were a concern by someone without an ulterior motive, they'd just defer to people with a track record of [i]caring[/i] and [i]knowing[/i] about the problems with the ESRB and effecting [i]actual[/i] change -- someone like the Senator from Connecticut.

Re:Clearly they know...

[*weasel]

I can't believe I used UBB code.
wth is wrong with me?

Dems and Reps alike

[Goosey]

They just can't leave the games alone. When will games finally be recognized as the expressions of free speech they are? Meh

Change in the rating system.

[chrisflesner]

Perhaps they should change M from standing for "Mature" to "My god you're an idiot if you buy this game for your child".

Maybe that would send the right message to parents.

Re:substitue legislation for the necessity of pare

[Dirtside]

Back in the 50's we had the classic "Leave it to Beaver" parenting model, where Dad went to work, and Mom stayed home with the kids. Perhaps Mom was swilling the liquor and playing poker with her friends, but mine wasn't, and AFAIK, the other moms in the neighborhood weren't. We had active and involved moms who enforced values, (to put it in current-speak) kissed skinned knees, and got us back up on our bikes, etc.

Fallacy of generalization. Please try again.

FP...S

[Anonymous Coward]

Have they even confimred the cheat works? I did a couple cheats in my day, but always gave my employer "plausible denial". They keep refering to this as a "MOD"? I doubt Hillary has even seen it actually run.

I don't quite understand this

[xenocide2]

This isn't something you can accidentally accomplish. This is another case of mothers not understanding the development of the male sexuality. Boys don't just wake up one day and think, "I've decided I'd like to develop a committed relationship with a woman full of love, understanding and consensually gratification." At best, it's "I like boobies!"

People here have made the mistake of assuming that this is an attempt to legislate good parenting. Only if you assume that pornography has no potentially positive role in becoming an adult. The biggest irony here is that the game is rated M, but the content is clearly aimed at an adolescent T. Unfortunately, the money earmarked for "research" will almost certainly be awarded to those with a track record of finding the way the Senators involved like. I mean, if pornography is harmful to adolescents, then are men who look at porn evil? That's a pretty extreme view to take, and a good example of the kind of discussion you wont hear from the talking heads on TV.

Rockstar deserves what they get.

[nobodyman]

ARGH! Okay...seriously...it's already rated M. It's out of the hands of children. If Rockstar actually left the content in that wasn't the smartest thing they've ever done, but it's not like they killed a puppy.

Actually, I find Rockstar's behaviour incredibly irresponsible. Now now, hear me out . It sounds like I'm about to make a moral stand... i'm not.

Here's the deal. Rockstar has been playing a very dangerous game. They that the controversy of GTA3 helped their profits more than it hurt. After making this realization, they've been ratcheting up the controversy -- the GTA series has arguably become more and more violent and lost most of its "comical" violence, and of course there's Manhunt. Manhunt is the most obvious example - were it not for the controversy (and subsequent free publicity to gamers wanting to know what that controversy was about) that piece of crap would have sold all of 3 copies.

So they've playing this game of chicken with the media and the US government, trying to see just how far they could push it. Then they include the "hot coffee" content, knowing it would be easily unlocked while having the out of saying it was the work of hackers who had to tweak the code. Make no mistake: Rockstar wanted the hot coffee content to be unlocked.

Unfortunately, it's not just Rockstar that takes the heat. The media resoundly thinks that Developers are amoral thugs and that all gamers are pathological timebombs. And when congress steps in and decides to regulate, they wont regulate only Rockstar games. Everyone in the industry suffers.

I believe in freedom of expression, and it puts me in the position of defending Rockstar. I think they should have the freedom to do make any type of game they please. However, not for one second do I think that the company is run by anything other than irresponsible media whores.

Re:Rockstar deserves what they get.

[NBarnes]

That was kinda my responce, too, actually. And that from someone who is themselves a game dev professional. Right or wrong, our country is obviously having a social debate about videogames, and in the middle of that, Rockstar is not just putting out iterations of GTA3, but... releasing content like this. Thanks for helping the rest of us in the industry reach some sort of accord and avoid uneccesary regulation, Rockstar. When I have to put my next indie release through some chickenshit review board process, I'll make sure to send you a nice note.

Re:Rockstar deserves what they get.

[mZam]

Honestly.... how goddamn hard is this concept to wrap around your head? ESRB Rating : M for mature. This game contains: http://www.rockstargames.com/sanandreas/image/M.gi f Thats the ESRB rating right from the box... Where on there does it say the game is SAFE for kids to play? It's not meant for children. It even says there's strong sexual content. That would mean the "hot coffee" mod doesn't raise the bar any higher then it's already been set for!

Re:Rockstar deserves what they get.

[NBarnes]

Well, you're not wrong in a lot of ways. However, there's really two standards here. By your standard, Rockstar is in the clear, because they do have that 'M for Mature' thingie on the box. On the other hand, though, they had reason to know they were publishing an edgy game in a time when their industry was under heavy scrutiny by the Powers-That-Be. Is that fair to them? Of course not. It's unfair to the entire industry, and I'm not any happier about it than you are. However, as part of the industry, I think Rockstar behaved quite irresponsibly and has now certainly set the cause of video-games-as-legitimate-cultural-content back years, if not decades. If it's a choice between 'hot coffee' and 'no hot coffee', while it's not Rockstar's fault that they exist in a climate of cultural paranoia, I still wish they'd switched to decaf.

Re:Rockstar deserves what they get.

[nobodyman]

Agreed. It's unfair that game developers are put on the defensive for making games they they intend to be played by adults. Rockstar didn't create the "games are bad" groupthink, but they certainly are exploiting it just as much as Hilary Clinton is.

Lets go stomping!

[Vektuz]

So she's already started her bid for 2008 Unfortunately, she's already started it WRONG. Looks like another 4 years of republicans for this place. I would sooner vote for greens than vote for someone who would open their mouth while so amazingly misinformed about the thing.

Re:substitue legislation for the necessity of pare

[dpilot]

Is it any less a generalization than "both parents working, kids in daycare?"

What was the pre-50's general case, then?
Was the sweatshop model any more than a snapshot in time, like the 50's?
Even in the sweatshop model, who took care of the kids too small to be in the sweatshop?
For the agricultural model, I have half (Both of my parents were raised on farms, and I've worked on more than one farm, myself.) a clue... the kids worked the land, alongside their parents.
I suspect the hunter-gatherer model was similar to the agricultural model, but that's only supposition.

In any of these models, I suspect the caregiver for small children was usually/frequently family, tribe member, or close friend. (basically, a modern tribe member) In any of these cases, someone with a vested interest in the children's future.

Cut away "Leave it to Beaver," and the essence of my argument is whether or not the caregiver has a vested interest in the child's future. Or is the caregiver the low-cost provider looking for minimum fuss. I know there are responsible day-cares out there that do a good job of balancing strictness and nurturing. But I suspect it's also awfully prone to the race-to-the-bottom cost-driven model.

Why is it?

[spurtle15]

Way back when when Republicans where Republicans and Democrats were Democrats there was a cry for some by bipartisanship. Slowly the parties took on each other's ideals with now Republicans taking to big government and now the Democrats, with all this hoopla over a game, want to involve themselves in one's personal/family life. So the question I ask: When government makes a compromise, why is it always the worst of both worlds?

do i smell hypocrisy?

[abenton]

Its funny that clinton finds the things he enjoyed the most in the White House offensive, even though the details of his "unlocked code" was more widely known and public, and on another level, still on a dress somewhere.

Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn those Rethuglicans, always using their so-called "family values" to push their evil censorship-based agenda!

Oh, wait....

Since When...

[NRP128]

Since when is it the governments job to inhibit the free people's right to have entertainment, as well as take over MORE of the parential responsibilities of America's child-rearing citizens? Hell, by the time i get to where i want to have kids all i'll have to do is breed, the government will probably take it from there.

Hillary attacks smut

[Oshkoshjohn]

How soon we forget. Has it really only been twenty years since the 1985 Parental Music Resource Center (PMRC)congressional hearings? The purpose of the committee was to politicize the alleged nasty lyrics of rock 'n' roll and rap music, and was notably fronted by Senator Al Gore's wife Tipper Gore. All of the politicians who chose to become involved with the hearings were made to look like fools. The Frank Zappa album, "Frank Zappa Meets The Mothers Of Prevention" did an excellent job of mocking the proceedings. If Hillary Clinton tries to politicize a facet of popular culture, it will probably blow up in her face. I really believed she was a lot smarter than that!

It was clear

[NaCh0]

Some people are stupid and can't read.

Rockstar didn't make the patch anyway

[DanTheLewis]

I read on Gamasutra that this was a reverse-engineered patch some non-Rockstar kids made anyway; that none of this content was in the game to begin with.

"Rockstar's official statement on the matter reads: "So far we have learned that the "hot coffee" modification is the work of a determined group of hackers who have gone to significant trouble to alter scenes in the official version of the game. In violation of the software user agreement, hackers created the 'hot coffee' modification by disassembling and then combining, recompiling and altering the game's source code." The company's release continues: "Since the 'hot coffee' scenes cannot be created without intentional and significant technical modifications and reverse engineering of the game's source code, we are currently investigating ways that we can increase the security protection of the source code and prevent the game from being altered by the 'hot coffee' modification."

Maybe Hillary should pick a fight with the mod communities. Can't let people get creative!

Seriously, though, I don't think a Senator (D) will get nominated for the presidency next time around. If it happened, it would be a colossal f-up.

Re:Rockstar didn't make the patch anyway

[yaweh]

well if this is true, then that changes everything. im under the impression that it was an already existing module in the game as its purchased, that is "unlocked". if "hot coffee" is just a script that pulls the characters out of the game and puts them in silly positions, perhaps adds anatomy, etc, then rockstar cant be responsible for that. but somehow, it wouldnt surprise me if this is not the case. if i had to wager, id say that the "sex module" already exists in the package and a determined user, capable of scanning the code would be able to find a way to "unlock" the games mysteries. if this turns out to be the case, then rockstar is wrong.

Politician Jumps On Bandwagon

[GaryPatterson]

Who'd a thunk it?

I mean, a politician getting onto a current hot issue with a "Somebody think of the children" angle.

Shocking, bewildering, amazing news... it's not.

Re:Politician Jumps On Bandwagon

[yaweh]

dont be simple. its a fucked up day when our kids (M rating or not) 13, 14 , 15 years old whatever can have wierd ass computer sex in a game. that doesnt bother you? it should. running over homeless people, cops and pedestrians is bad enough.

and i dont want to hear another numbnutts cry about the meaningless "rating" or letter thats on the package of a game a 14 year old can buy without any trouble.

hillary is the real rockstar, cuz she rocks

Re:Politician Jumps On Bandwagon

[GaryPatterson]

Don't be a goddamned fool.

The game is already restricted to 17 year olds and above. In this case, I blame the parents, but what the Hell. Maybe it's fine to bring up a generation that think the rest of that sort of game is reasonable.

I prefer Hilary to the braindead bastards of the other party, but then since I've never been to the US and don't plan to go, who cares what I think about your politicians?

Get some balls and defend your rating system, or change it, or shut the Hell up. It's your country. If you're a voter, this is in your power.

Re:Politician Jumps On Bandwagon

[yaweh]

Get some balls and defend your rating system, or change it, or shut the Hell up. It's your country. If you're a voter, this is in your power.

i dont defend "self-policing" by our private enterprises, ever. i use my power as a voter, but im a minority it seems who absolutely has NO TRUST in privite industry to "do the right thing". private industry is a heartless, not mindless machine, like the borg, lol. i love free enterprise, dont get me wrong, but it needs to be tempered and regulated so it doesnt get "out of hand". because when it isnt, people get robbed, polluted, lied to, malnourished, diseased, burned, maimed, killed etc. and what im saying, isnt opinion, its fact, and it happens in the US. so all of you young republicans who say youre a democrat or liberal, should check your litmus to see where you reside on this general issue. i believe that the rights of citizens are paramount, and the right to sell trash is secondary.

Clinton is Already a Rockstar!

[nathanh]

We want the funk... give up the funk.

Yeow!

To be fair...

[syberanarchy]

I think this whole thing (LOL LET'S NAIL VIDEO GAMES FOR THE CHILD'NS!) is bullshit, but does that patch (sims) unlock content that was left on the disc by the devs, or is it completely user made? Rockstar's is the first, and I think that's what opened them up for this. I can't see why it was left on the master disc.

Re:To be fair...

[jon787]

My understanding is that the actual Sim models are nude and this patch is merely removing the blur that appears when they remove clothing.

Tipper 2.0

[mbius]

She really, really should have stuck with health care.

Tycho sums it up

[pommaq]

I think Tycho from Penny Arcade pretty much nailed it:

"Maybe it's just because we've done comics on the topic for nearly seven years, but it's getting harder and harder to understand why violence in electronic games warrants such brazen showmanship. Presumably it's all about the kids, but they always trot out a line of dirty-faced kids when they want to get their own shit through. It's like bringing your son to a restaurant, and then saying it was his birthday so you could get the free Mile High Mud Pie. Maybe he gets a bite or something, but mostly you'd really like to eat five pounds of frozen cake and chocolate ice cream, and there's not really any nobility associated with that."

Doesn't Understand Software

[benw1979]

(sigh)

This is just another example of politicians that do not understand software. Allow me to explain:

When you write software, inevitably certain "code paths" become unused as you modify the code (fix bugs, add functionality, refactor). In fact, we in the software industry have "code coverage" tools that help us find these unused or little used code paths, usually for testing purposes.

Now apparently one of the (many) pervs at Rock Star wrote these mini-sex games, and then disabled the code path to them instead of removing the code entirely. In English, this means that no form of user input or system state would ever allow this code to execute: it's dead code. Virtually all software has dead code.

So, there the code sits on all our computers, but it is impossible to be executed... until some "hacker" discovers it, and modifies the original code to enable it.

How can a company be held responsible for their code if it was modified by a completely seperate entity?!

I admit, it would have been wise for Rockstar to remove these code paths instead of just not calling into them, but at least they made the decision to disable them. That means that they agree with Senator Clinton that this type of content should NOT be in the hands of our youth.

Rockstar disabled the sex games, hackers enabled it. Go after the hackers, not the responsible gaming company (that submitted to standardized ratings process).

Re:Doesn't Understand Software

[gameboyhippo]

As a developer, I disagree with you. Could it be possible that R* wanted the code to be found? It would be their way of putting the code in and not taking responsibility for it. It could then up the sales of GTA to young pervs while still keeping that M rating. You don't have to be a hacker to download and install a patch.

Now I hate agreeing with Mrs. Clinton, but in this case, I'll have to swallow my pride and agree with her.

I'm pleased to informe you....

[Anonymous Coward]

that's what makes you a libertarian as opposed to a Libertarian.

Please note, much like in the Jennifer Government game the face politicians try to put on their absurd practices is necessarily different than their absurd practices.

Re: Manhunt

[Intellectual Elitist]

> Manhunt is the most obvious example - were it not for the controversy [...] that piece of crap would have sold all of 3 copies.

Manhunt received generally good reviews (75% on Metacritic, 77% on GameRankings) and was widely considered to be a solid, well-executed stealth-action game. If anything, the over-the-top gore worked against it terms of reviews and sales, though it boosted its rental performance.

Personally, I enjoyed Manhunt quite a bit.

Follow Best Buy's example

[Sierpinski]

I was just at Best Buy last night, and while I was there, I just made a quick rundown of the games section. The first thing I noticed were the big yellow 'WE ID' stickers every 2 feet on the shelves. If you are under a certain age, you are not allowed to purchase video games that fall into certain categories. I'm not exactly sure which categories those are, but I'm sure that GTA: San Andreas falls into that category. Now there are two problems here.

1. Some game store allowed a young person to buy this game. This is bad, but not *THAT* bad in my opinion.

2. Some parent either a) allowed it or b) didn't know about it. Either of those two options is completely unacceptable. Its called Parenting. Mrs. Clinton needs to let the rest of us play the games that we like and start focusing on the real problem: bad parents.

Doesn't she have better things to do?

[shoptroll]

Like chase down this:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/15/cia.leak.ro ve.ap/index.html

Honestly.

Favorite Quote

[Shihar]

I can't recall where I saw this quote. Might have been on a Slashdot actually. Whatever the case, it goes:

"Remember, Republicans are the evil party and Democrats are the stupid party. If they ever both agree on something it is both stupid and evil."

Just the other day I was hanging out with two Republican women. They know that bitching about "liberals" is pretty safe around me because I am libertarian leaning in politics. They were bitching about how "liberals want to force their values on you". I laughed and said, "Right, because republicans are against 'forcing values'... so long as we are not talking about social freedoms." The two shut up.

If you ever want to be on the fun side of a debate, just be a Libertarian. You can join one side in blasting the other, then promptly turn around and blast the people you just agreed with, without any hypocrisy.

Sorry

[Safety Cap]

That is much more than I wanted to know!

Undo :)

"following instructions on the Internet"?

[suparjerk]

Hah, like instructions on unlocking this game mode are the worst the Internet has to offer... especially regarding pornography.

God of War...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Is rated M and has a minigame where you have sex with two women at once at the end of the first level. There's even a full-motion-video scene that contains 3D rendered breasts of the two ladies before the minigame...

No unlocking, modding, or cracking necessary - The boobs and the sex are right there in the game waiting for anyone who can complete the first level.

Why don't we hear anybody talking about that one?