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.
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)
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.
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.
"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!
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?