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

LOOK AT ME

[oni]

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!

Re:LOOK AT ME

[Dausha]

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.

just curious...

[C0rinthian]

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.

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?

le sigh

[Joe the Lesser]

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.

SSDD

[BrookHarty]

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.

So Much For Bible Video Games ...

[rewinn]

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)

Proof? Just the "Target of the Period"

[WidescreenFreak]

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 Solution

[hunterx11]

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.

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.

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

[Sierpinski]

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.