Slashdot Mirror


Clinton Introduces Invasive Game Legislation

An anonymous reader writes "Senator Clinton has introduced a doozy of a game bill. It mandates an investigation of the gaming industry to determine how pervasive hidden mature content like the 'Hot Coffee' mod is." GamePolitics is reporting on the bill itself, as well as the ESA's response. From the latter article: "While we are gratified that the Senator holds the ESRB in such high regard that her bill would give these ratings the force of law, the courts have made clear that giving a private party governmental powers is unconstitutional. Beyond that, the bill clearly infringes the constitutionally protected creative rights of the video game industry. Thus, if enacted, the bill will be struck down as have similar bills passed in several states...." More commentary at Gamasutra.

5 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. just curious... by C0rinthian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    why something like this only applies to games and not other forms of media. Why does 'Family Entertainment Protection Act' specifically target games when movies, books, and magazines can be just as 'harmful' to children.

    Personally, I have a problem with the bill even existing, but I find the double standard to be particularly disturbing. I guess we're looking at FOTM politics.

  2. le sigh by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Young people WILL get what they want, be it porn or violence. Let's spend money on education and community programs instead so they won't be corrupted by said porn and violence.

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  3. The Solution by hunterx11 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The solution to this problem is obvious.

    The video game industry needs to start making campaign contributions to politicians at a level on par with the film and music industries.

    --
    English is easier said than done.
  4. P-A-R-E-N-T-I-N-G by Sierpinski · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If parents would stop leaving it up to the ESRB or the government to decide whats best for their children, these kinds of things wouldn't even be an issue. What the hell is a 13-year-old doing with GTA: San Andreas in the first place? I doubt he has a job, SOMEONE gave him that money, or SOMEONE took him to the store to buy that game. If it wasn't Mom or Dad, consider it a probably-not-illegal version of contributing to the deliquency of a minor. If it was Mom or Dad, shame on you, its YOUR fault.

    Stop blaming the game companies and start being a parent. If you don't have the time to spend to screen games and movies for your children, and if you're just letting them have whatever they want, then your parenting skills need some work. Obviously Dora the Explorer is probably going to be okay. Any game that has a masked gunman on the front, more than likely will not be okay.

    My wife and I recently went to go see Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Our daughter (4.5 years old) has seen movies 1-3. We thought the dementors in part 3 would be a problem for her, but we told her ahead of time "This movie has some dark ghost-looking things in it, do you think you'll be okay with that." Of course she's going to say yes, (as she did) but it at least gave her a heads up when she did see them. We told her that we were seeing #4 before we did, and we told her why. Even at 4.5 years, she understood (or seemed to) that maybe that movie was too much for a little girl and that if we didn't think it was okay for her to watch it, then she wouldn't get to see it. It wasn't, and she didn't. She (luckily) understood that and didn't even give it a second thought. She just said "Will I get to watch it when I'm older?" and we of course said yes.

    Before you ask, was I going to see the movie anyway? Probably. The difference being that we went through the trouble of getting a family member to watch her while we went, instead of just taking her in the first place.

    A neighbor's kid watched The Ring because he wasn't being supervised (at all) and he had horrific nightmares for about 3 months because of it. The parents got upset and started blaming the studio. Finally another neighbor (who wasn't afraid to speak her mind) said that it was basically their fault that they weren't involved in what their child was watching. It happened in their own house, on the family TV, while they were home.

    Any fool can have a child, but it takes a lot of effort to be able to call yourself a parent. Senator Clinton thinks she knows whats best for your children. While I might not always make the best decision with respect to my kids, I do try to, but the bottom line is that they are MY kids, and its MY decision.

  5. Re:LOOK AT ME by Dausha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but Hillary is definitely *not* a moderate. She is a closet socialist--in the closet because she realizes that most of Americans disagree with her agenda. Remember her universal medical coverage, her bus tour across the U.S. to push it? More importantly, I don't think liberals have rejected her. She is very popular among the NOW, which is not the bastion of Moderateness.

    If she were a Moderate, or a Conservative, then she would have run for Senator in Arkansas, her last state of residence. She might have won, even though she is a Yankee. She ran in NY because it is *not* a Conservative state. She went to where her base was.

    --
    What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.