Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Files Game Legislation
GamePolitics is reporting that Senator Clinton has formally filed game legislation. The bill, likely not to be discussed until the Senate returns from Holiday break, is co-sponsored by Senator Lieberman. From the article: "The Senators emphasized that their legislation will put teeth in the enforcement of video game ratings, helping parents protect their children from inappropriate content. They were joined in making the announcement by April DeLaney, Director of the Washington Office for Common Sense Media; Norman Rosenberg, President and CEO of Parents Action for Children and Dr. Michael Rich, Director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital in Boston and Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, in a show of support for the legislation.
"
think of the children!
Ugh, this wheeling and dealing by Clinton is just infuriating. We HAVE laws that specify which games can and cannot be sold to minors. We HAVE a ratings board. If these are broken, fix them, but new laws? C'mon!
Have I said UGH?
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
This has nothing to do with the children. It has everything to do with the 2008 Presidential election. 'Nough said.
Ars has a great article on how all of this is ultimately unconsitutional, and it mostly just a ploy to force the industry to self-regulate. It makes sense, because you cannot make 3rd parties so powerful.
she can have mine...
Looks like those evil Republicans are trying to censor us again! What happened to the first amendment? George Bush is the antichrist!
Oh, wait...
Maybe someone should send the good Senators Professor Jenkin's study debunking the myth that video games cause children to become aggressive homicidal sociopaths as mentioned here on Tuesday.
a rding=issue
Better yet, why doesn't everone send them it.
Clinton, Hillary- (D - NY)
476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4451
Web Form: http://clinton.senate.gov/contact
Lieberman, Joseph- (D - CT)
706 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4041
Web Form: http://lieberman.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm?reg
While you're at it, why not contact your Senators and tell them to oppose the bill.
I have said this before, but I will say it again....
While I agree that it is the role of government to protect its citzens, it is not the role of government to dictate or legislate morality or what is or is not appropriate for my children. The burden of responsibility rests exclusively with parents, not with day care, teachers (who many have turned to to handle their children out of incompotence, frustration or laziness), companies (vote with your wallet if you do not like their product) or the senate (which religious instutions have come to recognize as a cheap and easy police force, it is easier and cheaper than putting butts in pews and does not require consent). It is job of parents to decide what is or what is not appropriate for their children. Having children is a protected right, if you can have a kid without a permit, license, examination or qualification or demonstrated financial stability, then it sure as heck is not the responsiblity of the same government to raise them for you. It is not your T.V.'s, XBox's or teacher's job to raise them either.
Raising kids is work, it requires time, you may be tired, want to do something else, but you wanted or have kids for whatever reason good or bad, tough luck. Now you are parent. Now you have to guide them, educate them, and punish them. It is work and you do NOT get paid to do it. As I stated previously, I am an adult gamer and soon to be father, I am a big game fan. I like a lot of games in the FPS catagory which are typically classified as violent. It is my job to decide if and when my child will be granted access to such material until they achieve legal age to make such determinations for themselves. It is my job to be interested in my child's activities, to notice that they are despondent, angry or frustrated and about do something stupid. It is MY job to help them, guide them, and punish them.
That, said, I want to know who would honestly believes that a child could make/modify a sawed-off shotgun in their garage/basement/room if the parent exercised due diligence. You do not do that quietly. It is not something you are assigned in metal shop. I am definitely not going to ask or even expect the $6.25/hour idiot behind the counter the local EBgames to do it for me either. It is my job to make sure that inapporpriate (which I define and decide upon) does not get in the house, the computer, etc. Take five minutes to walk through kid's room, even if you work two shifts at night. That said, kids do not NEED a computer, they want them, them make work easier. For good reason, it makes homework easier (I do not need to learn to spell or use proper grammar, that is what Word is for). I still own and use a working typerwriter (they still make them) and so will my kids. Some tools BREED laziness. Sometimes it is important to learn how to proof read and use a dictionary (spell checker) the old fashioned analogue way.
Parents may deem content inappropriate for what ever reasons they like, but that does not mean that others are obliged to protect their children from such "evils" if they do not deem it similarly inappropriate. For example, some christian organizations treat Harry Potter as evil for its depictions of magic, etc. That may not be the opinion of another parent, it is not mine. It therefore precludes successful legislation of any kind. It may be necessary to create a rating system, but it is a guide, NOT a rule. I may choose to adhere to it or not. I may choose to take my child to an R rated movie or play a FPS shooter at the age I deem appropriately.
The computer game industry would be smart to buckle down and create a rigid and reasonable rating system. It should enforce it, it should guarantee the guide's integrity and should punish its own when they break it. I think the industry should be embarrased by the GTA fiasco, does that make GTA or Rockstar bad no. If the industry wants to regulate itself, it should grant the regulators the right to impose fines, damages, punative or othe
I'm still confused as hell at what went wrong here. The ESRB rated the game based on the content that was playable. "Hot Coffee" is not part of that content since you can't get to it without intentionally hacking the code. It's like complaining to your cable company that you can see the Playboy channel on your home cable system if you install a 3rd party descrambler and enter a code. WTF?
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
Correct me if I am wrong. The MPAA has a self imposed regulation system that seems to work pretty well. A board of parents rate the film using easy to identify letters. I don't think there are any penalties for allowing underage kids access to restricted material. I have not heard of youths being exposed to "Inappropriate" material at the theatre/sales oriface recently. The ESRB also is a system based on easy to identify letters. I hear of "inappropriate" material sold to youths fairly often here.
I do not think Wal-Mart would sell GTA: Vice-City to a 14 year old but would not sell "R" rated films. This leads me to blame parents for not making their children's welfare a priority and blaming video games. I also think the media is responsible for blowing one aspect of a much larger picture out of proportion. I have seen "R" rated films that would glorify the murder society much like scapegoats like the GTA series. As a parent of two, I keep an eye on what the little ones watch, and have no problem being unpopular when I change the channel.
Beware the fury of a patient man
- John Dryden
I've created a small stub on wikipedia. I'm sure people here could help out flesh out a nice "criticism" section. Here's the article:
_ Protection_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment
Everyone calm down. The current rating system does jack. It is only a rating system, and only a few states actually have to use them when selling games. What they, not she, are doing is trying to make the rating system enforcable by law. As a parent, this means my child can not walk into a store and get crap like the new Larry game. Now, i don't care about the nudity, I just don't want my kid buying crap. I support this.
The bill will also outlaw the opening day sale of Dragon Quest on a weekday
As a staunch Democrat and a stauncher liberal, it frustrates the hell out of me to see Hillary pandering to social conservatives with crap like this. First, it won't work. The kind of voters who get excited about videogame violence legislation are the kind of people who would never vote for a pro-choice Democrat in the first place. More importantly, it makes Democrats look lame and out of touch, which is the last thing the party needs. You can't be the cool, progressive party if one of your most famous politicians is constantly acting like an embarassing soccer mom.
And geez, is there a way to vote Joe Lieberman out of the freaking party? You're a Republican, Joe. Just admit it and stop confusing America!
This woman could be representing our party in 2008.. this is annoying at least.
I don't like it when the Christofascists do it, and I don't like it when Democratic panderers do it.
Just when I think the Democratic Party is starting to grow a spine and stand up for some libertarian principles rather than pander.... No, this is not intended as flame-bait - it is an expression of frustration with a binary political system that has segmented every issue into a "They don't think it's right?!?! Then it MUST be right! Write up a bill legislating it for us to vote on, intern! Oh, and say it's to protect the children!!!" - mentality.
i ds#1
a rchives/income_wealth/002484.html
U NS/GUNSTAT.html
Here's a wacky idea - instead of legislating a bill "protecting [kids] from a coarsening culture" (Senator Bayh) in fictional video games, how about a bill protecting kids from real gun violence (Over 5,000 kids killed by guns in the US in 1997), real poverty (35,000,000 in 2003 in the U.S), and real rape (204,000 in the USA 2003-2004)? Oh, right, that would involve hard choices about civil liberties, responsibilities, Constitutional rights and freedom of choice, and other complicated things. Screw it, it won't get votes. Ban those nasty video games instead!!!
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=k
http://www.rainn.org/statistics/
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/G
Legislation similar to this was already voted down by the Illinois legislature; I can't see the Senate approving such a radical measure if the Democrat-oriented Illinois legislature won't pass it. The ESRB is a business. Their motivation is profit, not public service. Restricting the sale of video games to minors based upon a rating given by a private business would grant the ESRB a government-sanctioned monopoly. Also, the Constitution nowhere gives Congress the ability to regulate sale of items. It gives it the power to regulate interstate commerce... but I don't think that applies. On grounds very similar to the above, Andrew Jackson vetoed the rechartering of the US Bank during the 1830s. There are laws instituted for our own safety, such as seatbelt laws and so forth. But these are not national laws, they're are state-instituted laws. What gives Senator Clinton the idea that Congress can empower such an act? In conclusion, the proposed law is unlikely to pass and is probably not constitutional. This is nothing but an attempt to curry favor with the voters (parents = voters) to promote her campaign in the 2008 presidential election. I wouldn't worry about it passing, though. As for the do-games-kill-people question, I think all of us really have the same basic opinion. And it's a lot stronger an argument than the NRA has... but then again, the NRA has guns where we have level 60 pallies. And I don't think the Senators play Horde.
Tell me something...it's still "We, the people"... right?
Hillary Clinton and her driver were cruising along a country road
one evening when an old cow loomed in front of the car. The
driver tried to avoid it but couldn't - the old cow was killed.
Hillary told her driver to go up to the farmhouse and explain to the
owners what happened. She stayed in the car making phone calls
to lobbyists.
About an hour later, the driver staggered back to the car with his
clothes in disarray. He was holding a half empty bottle of
expensive wine in one hand, an expensive Cuban cigar in the
other and was smiling happily, smeared with lipstick.
"What happened?" asked Hillary.
"Well," the driver replied, "the farmer gave me the cigar, his wife
gave me the wine, and their beautiful twin daughters made mad
passionate love to me."
"My God, what did you tell them?" asked Hillary.
The driver replied: "I said, I'm Hillary Clinton's driver, and I just
killed the old cow."
The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
FYI, you can be arrested for letting a 12 year old into a porno movie.
Y'know it's been kind of rough for us Republicans lately. People have been actually paying attention to us ruining the economy and wasting good soldiers in Iraq and stuff, its been shaping up to be kind of a blue Christmas lately. Then the honorable Senator from New York goes and makes a complete fool of herself! Nothin like lady Macbeth in a headband and pantsuit to lighten those holiday glums. Did you know every time she whines on Larry King a Republican gets their wings? Merry Christmas, you wonderful old world! To Hillary Clinton, the dumbest Senator in town.
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!