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.
I wanna tack a rider on to that bill. $30 million dollars of tax payer money for the perverted arts.
Can you please make Politics the primary category for this article so that people will actually see it and comment on it?
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
Hey everyone, look at me! I'm running for president, and I'm absolutely *not* a liberal at all. No sir (or ma'am), I am a moderate and I care. I care so much, that sometimes care oozes out of my pores and drips onto the ground. And I mop it up because I don't want anyone to slip and fall. That's how much I care.
Want another example? I care about your little son, Timberland, whom you drive to Soccer practice every day in your 30 ton SUV. I care about him so much that I'm going to get those evil game companies that push violent games on him. I'm going to get them. I'm going to make them pay. Don't you see how much I care?
VOTE FOR ME!
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.
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!
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?
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)
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.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
Another "What can we stick our noses into" bill that might become law.
I'm glad the Religous Right and the Lame Left are here to protect me from, ah, everything.
This land is their land,
It isn't our land,
From the Wall Street office
To the Cadillac car-land;
From the plush apartments
To the Hollywood starland,
This land is not for you and me.
If this is our land,
You'd never know it,
So take your bullshit
And kindly stow it,
Let's get together
And overthrow it,
Then this land will be for you and me.
I could care less about this. This IS NOT censorship. You can make any game you want. You can sell your adult themed games to adults. If you think your child is mature enough to play a game that they cannot legally purchase, purchase it for them.
Let the FCC investigate the Hot Coffee incident. What are they going to suggest? That we get a new and improved rating system? Oh, NO! Not another rating system that childrens parents are going to ignore anyway. This problem wouldn't exist if people would raise their own children, which they don't do. So now Big Mother has to step in and do it for you.
The major target of video game companies are 28-35 year old's who grew up playing games and have disposable income. This demographic votes with their dollar and those votes are for violence and adult themes. Companies are catering to this. Maybe it is time for some harsher regulations on sales. A little kid cannot go and purchase Scarface at the media store, so why should he be able to get GTA:SA?
Now, if this starts to regulate content - I'm fighting tooth and nail.
If we apply this standard to the Holy Book, we're going to have to put warning labels on any game based on, e.g. "a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!" (Psalms 137:9) or "And that slave, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten." (Luke 12:47)
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
Back in the day when her "husband" was president, her supposed top priority was reforming health care to ensure that every American had some sort of reasonable coverage for if they were sick or injured. Now she's more worried about protecting our youth from potential images of sex or violence.
It seems to me that government in general lately has been more concerned with legislation that protects "morality" (e.g. media content, gay marriages, etc.) than with doing anything that tangibly affects people such as health care. It's like going back to the days of the Puritans and all of their 'blue laws' (many of which still exist in New England).
What you described probably fits all of the politicians inside of the Washington beltway. All that this latest stunt proves is that she's a perfect fit for the Washington insiders who say and do what is necessary to garner votes and successfully fool their constituents.
Look, every so often the politicians make it seem as though there is some critical issue that demands their attention (and our tax dollars) so that we can feel good about ourselves. In the 1950s, we had the horrible Communists infiltrating America. Later on, we had Watergate, which happens all of the time except in this case the culprits were caught. In the 1980s we had Iran/Contra. In the 1990s (or was it 1980s) we had the evils of suggestive music where John Denver was accused of subliminally advocating drugs in "Rocky Mountain High". In the 1990s we briefly had violent games in the spotlight due to those two jackasses at Columbine. We also had to investiage whether Billy Boy screwed a government intern. Lots of money spent on that one.
And now we have video games back in the spotlight because of -- HORRORS! -- sex!! You know, that thing that every parent through th the history of man has performed in order to propagate the species? Obsessive, narcissistic, self-absorbed politicians on both sides of the ailse have once again found a rallying cry to make it look like they have our interests (and of course our children's interests - can't forget the children) at heart.
I'm very much right-of-center politically, but I can spot opportunistic politians on both sides of the aisle. And right now it's just about even. If you're going to include Hillary, you have to include that idiot Republican senator from Florida (Jack Thompson, I beleive) as well.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
This is all just Clinton's push to look like she's in the middle. I doubt she'll take it as far as Tipper did with her censorship campaign. It's gonna be great to see where Bill fits in all of this.
Personally, I'd pick a name at random out of the phone book and take my chances rather than the fuck-ups that are currently running the show.
It's hilarious that Hillary would be on a crusade to protect kids from sexual content after her husband did so much to promote fellatio and marital infidelity. Hillary says she wants to put parents "back in the driver's seat" with respect to protecting their children. But isn't her proposal an attempt to put the federal government in the driver seat? I think little Timmy will download mature games from file sharing networks anyway.
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.
Except that Jack Thompson isn't a senator. He's a crackpot lawyer looking for a way to make his name in the world, or a quick buck, or whatever it is he's after. When Jack Thompson says something, we can all safely ignore him as a crackpot. When real law makers start talking, we have to pay some attention. It was enough to slap warning labels on our music in the late 80's, early 90's to protect the childrenz...but we've already got the warning labels on video games. If something can actually happen as a result of this, besides squandering untold amounts of tax dollars, we have a vested interest in keeping an eye on it.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Or is she just trying to keep tabs on what Bill's video games are showing him.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
"This is about protecting children," she commented.
I'm so sick of people buying to this excuse. Every time I hear it, I shudder to think what liberties they're attempting to strip away.
No Hilary, there isnt any more content in games like the hot coffee mod thats why it was interesting in the first place, yes I know thats what made you famous and you want to milk it as much as possible but you just CAN'T the well is dry, sorry.
No Hilary, you cant go to the developers offices and check if they are adding penises to their game models when nobody is watching it's anticonstitutional and is against the first ammendment the artists are (surpringsily enough) human beings and united states citizens. You can't impose Gestapo like rules on them because you think is convenient.
No Hilary, theres no way in hell we are voting for you for president, seriously, no way, not a slim chance, nada, zero, zip, not even if you get elected as the new pope, we would vote for Bush again before voting for you (and that is saying a lot).
Go back and do.. whatever it is you do when you are not trying to bring back the inquisition to the 21st century
BTW those games are rated "M" they are not intended for "children" which is whom your holy crusade suposedly tries to protect, children are not supossed to play those games with or without adult content, parents should be penalized for allowing their kids to play "M" games NOT game developers. How about if parents start acting like responsible adults for a change? instead of blaming the [insert scape goat of the week here] for their problems?
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
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.
And they said zombies weren't real!
Who'd want to bring children to this fucked-up world anyways???? Let's adopt them from the overcrowded turd-world instead. They're waaaaay much cuter then white trash offspring, and they'll diversify our gene pool.
Seriously, the whole dang world isn't meant for kids. We're adults and we'd like to have some adult type fun. If you honestly beleive that the whole world is meant to be some damned Disney park, PG-rated place, you are a moron. "Southpark", while it is cartoon, is clearly not meant for children and neither is "Drawn Together", which is also cartoon. We keep "Playboy" and "Hustler" available for adults but access is denied to children, unless a parent buys one and gives it to them. The same goes for "R" rated movies, booze, cigarettes, porn, and whole host of other things we, as a society, have deemed "unsuitable" for children.
As an avid gamer, I cannot tell you how many times I have seen parents purchasing video games rated "M" for their children. In many cases, the parent enters the store, guided by said child, who points at what they want and Mom or Dad plops down the plastic to pay for it. In cases where the child looks to be of sufficient age to me (15+), I don't generally say anything to the parent. If they look younger, I generally do say something like "So...Do you get your kid hookers and booze too?"
A lot of parents don't take the time to investigate what's in the games that Little Johnny wants and they flatly ignore the ratings labels. I realize that a lot of parents don't game and I do think that stores need to have at least one rather large poster that explains that games are rated "M" for violence, nudity and/or sexuality, languge, and/or drug usage. Lord knows we have mandatory signs for everything else in the country.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
Fair enough. I thought that he had something to do with politics, but the idea is still the same. He's just someone out there who is desperate for attention to make people think he's out for their interests. Unfortunately, we still have to keep an eye on him because his shrieking is obviously rubbing off on Hillary who has idientified this as her Political Spotlight du Jour.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
You know, like Iraq or the defecit or health care?
What a screwed up country.
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
What part of this is offtopic? Senator Clinton introduces a bill about Video Game Violence (that's the gist of the article). Based on this information, an AC decides he will no longer support Hillary. This looks more to me like a moderator quashing a viewpoint they don't agree with than a legitimate moderation.
Fuck reproduction! We fuck and suck for the orgasms!!!
;)
Don't be childish, Jenkins. Where did I say that it was for the sole purpose of propagation?
My point is that (until recently) people had to engage in sex in order to have children. The fact that we're here and that we have evidence of humans that go back millenia is proof that this is nothing unnatural and therefore should not be given such a spotlight or such a negative view. So, even if there was no pleasure attributed to it, it has to happen or the species disappears.
You need to lay off the cough syrup. Seriously. I'm worried about you, man.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
My only problem with your letter (other than that it's a little confrontational) is your quickness to blame this on conservatives. Although there are certainly too many Jack Thompsons in the world, there are also plenty of Hillary Clintons and Tipper Gores. This is not a liberal-vs-conservative issue - it's a government-vs-individual issue.
People who tend to be pro-big-government also tend to be pro-censorship, and there are at least as many big government liberals as conservatives. The real lesson is that all of us, regardless of the direction of our leanings, need to watch out for those would would claim to represent our wants as they strip us of our liberties. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else you might happen to be, don't think it can't happen in your party.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I'll bet some of your kids' friends' parents also have a pot stash. What's your point, other than that you need to pay more attention to who your kids are hanging out with?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I'd help campaign for her in the primaries! :)
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
You're mixing analogies. Your kid doesn't have GTA. Why? Because you won't let him buy it. If your kid's friends have GTA, then it's because their parents let them have it. Your beef is with those parents, not the game companies.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I know this is going to sound paranoid and cynical, but maybe the reason this bill has been written in such a way that it will certainly fail to withstand a judicial review is because it isn't actually meant to become law?
Let's flash back to 1985. A group of senator's wives freak out over the sexually explicit lyrics of a Prince song and form a reactionary group called the PMRC (Parent's Music Resource Center). They use their husband's influence to bring their case before congress - particularly the influence of one Senator Al Gore, head of the Commerce Committee. This committee holds hearings to investigate the content of music lyrics, threatening to pass legislation to censor said lyrics. Al's popularity in his conservative home state (Tennessee) soars.
A few years later, Al wants to run for president. But he needs money. Being a Democrat, he is most likely to get financial support from states like California. But they don't like Al there because of the problems he has created for the entertainment industry. So kisses up to the industry, promising to change his ways and not go after them any more. As a result the Clinton-Gore ticket rakes in huge campaign contributions from them.
Now let's jump ahead to the present. The videgame industry is making headlines - both for huge profits and controversial content. By attacking them, Hillary not only creates a more "family friendly" image, but also puts pressure on those deep pockets. When it comes time for her to make her expected run for the presidency, she will no doubt be able to say to the game industry (which is primarily located in so-called "blue" states) "I have learned my lesson, you can't legislate morality, now give big bucks to elect a president that knows better!"
I admit this sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory, but perhaps this bill is really just a fund raising tactic?
Must... think up... something... clever!
A Senate investigation of hidden "hot coffee"-type content will end up costing millions of dollars if you consider the operation costs of the Senate. Why doesn't Senator Hillary Clinton just pay $50 to a fourteen year-old with an internet connection to Google "video game easter eggs." Trust me, what would take the Senate a week to do, one fourteen year-old could do in 3 hours.
That is all.
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
"This bill would help empower parents by putting them back in the driver's seat. It would ensure that children can't buy games the video game industry itself has determined to be inappropriate for them."
So we need a law for parents to use their parental authority on what games their kids can buy and play? Maybe we need a constitutional amendment since a lot of parents ARE NOT using their parental authority to even raise their kids.
In the past I respected Hillary Clinton, but with her ongoing crusade against video games and ties with scum like Jack Thompson, she has become despicable. She is a disgrace to the Democratic party, I would never consider voting for her on any platform.
Remember the Columbine shooting massacre in Littletown, Colorado? After that happened, there was a big 'witch hunt' happening at schools around the country. I was in middle school when the event happened. I to wore a black trench coat often while hanging out with my other friends who were dressed similarly. Shortly after, I sold the coat because I was getting social pressure from what the coat was considered to represent at the time. I was not going to go and shoot anyone at my school, niether were any of my friends. Nevertheless, people were terrified by anything that resembled the so called 'Trench Coat Mafia' (which those kids did not even call themselves anyway).
Some schools invested in metal detectors and more security personell. My high school instated a policy that we were to wear special name tags on lanyards as to be easier to identify. They told us that these badges protected us, because if someone who was not supposed to be there entered the school they would not be wearing one. The reality however was that they only enforced the wearing of these items half the time, it just became an excuse to randomly send kids to the office if they forgot their name tags.
What's more, you have to understand how the Columbine incident happened. Niether of the suspects were wearing their trench coats, they simply walked in to the school visibly armed with a small arsenal of weapons. Metal detectors, name tags, clothing policies and other such measures would have done nothing to prevent what happened there. So why did all of these schools implement these ideas that made little or no sense at all? The schools got media attention every time they did something like this, it was a public relations paradox. They re-assured the parents that their children were being protected from unseen threats.
The difference between this and the Hot Coffee mod incident is how people were blindly affected by these occurences. Fear was the motivater for Columbines aftermath. Outrage and disgust is the motivator for bashing video games.
I could go on forever on this subject, but I think I would just be preaching to the choir as they say. As an American, I am sometimes saddened by overreactions like this. We are not all morons though, fortunately there are organizations like the ACLU that fight against this type of asinine idealology.