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.

Comments

Welcome to black hole federalism

[voice_of_all_reason]

The single biggest reason politicians fail:

"Yes, it's illegal. Yes, I know it's been defeated before. But, goddamn it, I want it! Want want want! Rrrrr, gimme! Mine!

Irrationalism is alive and well.

[max born]

Usually when someone wants to pass a law for something, like seat belts, speed limits, drunk driving, etc., they have some scientific data pointing to a problem that can be rectified by a law.

But when it comes to nudity, profanity, violence -- you need no scientific evidence to support you claims. Afterall we all just know it's bad, right?

It's also interesting to note that, despite reasonable evidence to the contrary people still believe in horoscopes, ghosts, and angels. A recent CBS news poll found that 51% of Americans don't believe in evolution.

I'd hazard to guess these kinds of bills are more about justifying our own irrational superstitions than they are about protecting children. What exactly are we protecting them from anyway?

A tough one

[jd]

Politicians who write bills that would actually work would be crucified by the Religious Right. Given the current trend in extremism in the US, possibly literally.

On the other hand, I would certainly regard it as both fair and reasonable for Government to determine if "easter eggs" and other hidden content frequently contain illegal extras. I'm not just counting adult material in a juvenile game - the whole Sony DRM thing was definitely hidden content containing illegal extras.

This does not mean such material should not be circulated, but rather that the Government would seem to be in the ideal position to provide information on what products actually do, as opposed to what they are advertized to do. (As the media and consumer agencies have done bugger all to protect consumers, in recent years, if Senator Clinton is volunteering to do the job, I'd say let her. She can't do worse.)

Mature content

[fastgood]

So in 1965 when Senator Clinton was 17 years old, the government should have been investigating
all the hidden content being revealed when teens started playing 45rpm records backwards?

There's little new under the sun, and gray hair still makes people forget their own younger days.

Re:LOOK AT ME

[Profane MuthaFucka]

You're right, Hillary is not a liberal. She's a part of the Democratic party called the DLC, which for years has been saying that the Dems need to be more like Republicans because conservatives get the votes. That DLC strategy doesn't really work that well, as we have all seen.

Hillary is quite uniformly rejected by the liberals in the Democratic party.

My letter to Joseph Lieberman, D, CT

[illumin8]

I just sent a letter to Joseph Lieberman, and if you live in either CT or NY I suggest you do the same (send one to Hillary Clinton if you live in NY of course). This is the only way they'll know we don't approve of their actions:

Dear Senator Lieberman,

Today I learned that in two weeks time, you will be introducing a bill along with Senator Clinton titled the "Family Entertainment Protection Act." I would like to request that you reconsider introducing such a bill.

I am 32 years old, college educated, and work as a professional in the chip manufacturing and semiconductor industry here in Connecticut. I am also a gamer. I play all types of video games, including violent ones, and have never felt the urge to commit any violent acts in real life. Much like sports, games are a good stress reliever and can help people to work out their aggressive tendencies in a non-harmful way. There are millions of people like me that are professional adults, have real jobs, and play video games. Guess what? We're also voters and we won't hesitate to send you back to Connecticut in 2006.

The bill that you are prepared to introduce would have the end result of introducing a type of censorship and control that is unprecedented over any type of media, whether it be books, films, or music.

The bill you are proposing limits free speech and the creative expression of the artists that make video games, and don't try to think for one second that games are not an art form. As a United States Senator, you swore an oath to uphold the constitution. The fact that you would even consider introducing such legislation gives me serious doubts about your abilities as a senator and representative of the people.

I have heard conservatives argue that video games contribute to violence in our youth, and I want to make sure that you don't believe those lies either. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, violent crime in schools has declined dramatically since 1994, the same time period that video game sales have increased dramatically. Please see the following study: http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violenc e-in-schools/national-statistics.html

In conclusion, if you propose this bill I will not vote for your reelection to the US Senate next November, and will actively encourage everyone I know in Connecticut to do the same.

Don't make the mistake of thinking all of your constituents aren't capable of thinking and acting for themselves. Video games are like any other media and should be controlled by an individual child's parents. If a parent doesn't want their kid playing Grand Theft Auto, they should watch their children and not let them play it. How hard is this if the child is living in the same house as the parent? It is just like any other media, whether it's a book, a movie, or television. The responsbility is the parents and the parents alone to ensure that their kids aren't exposed to things they find offensive. Government should never interfere in this.

Re:P-A-R-E-N-T-I-N-G

[CDarklock]

> the bottom line is that they are MY kids,
> and its MY decision.

Bingo.

My son Logan shot his first pedestrian in GTA:SA when he was eight months old.

I have zero intention of censoring content. He needs to learn how to handle it. I will help him learn that, and I believe the earlier he learns to handle it, the better.

If other children come over to the house, different rules apply. I will speak with their parents to see where *they* want the line drawn at my house. I will speak with my son about how other children aren't always allowed to see and read and do the same things he is.

And, of course, if my son proves unable to handle something... a little censorship might actually be necessary. I'm opposed to it, but I'm not stupidly crusading for an ideal against all sense and reason.