Gaming Politics To Watch Today

As you go to the polls today, alongside more serious issue be sure to think of how politics affects the gaming world. GamePolitics has a rundown of politicians associated with gaming (in either a good or bad way) who are up for re-election today. From the article: "Hillary Clinton (D-NY): sponsor of the Family Entertainment Protection Act (FEPA). Joe Lieberman (I-CT): his criticism of game violence in the mid-1990's led directly to the formation of the ESRB. Rick Santorum (R-PA): backs Hillary's game initiatives, but also backs the ESRB. George Allen (R-VA): backs the ESRB rating system. Candidate Mike McGavick (R-WA): trying to unseat Democrat Maria Cantwell; he believes the entertainment industry will not regulate itself and wants to explore legislative solutions."

Comments

What's wrong with ESRB?

[MBraynard]

It's an independant, non-governmental, non-profit organization that has the full support of developers and publishers who voluntarily have their games certified. I realize the typical slashherd member can't see the difference between this and, say, Red China's government cracking down on politically disident 'bloggers,' but the difference is there.

And if the private sector does not do a good job at self-regulation (and even sometimes when it does!), the unfortunate result is government's ham-fisted regulation that is always worse. So three cheers for the ESRB?

War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[Outatime]

Are you kidding me? Even if you're a hardcore gamer, games should be the LAST thing you consider as you vote for someone for public office. This article is ridiculous.

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[BlueCodeWarrior]

Different things have different importance to different people.

You're also ignoring some sitations. Maybe Candiate A and Candidate B both support 3 issues I care about and are against 3. One holds my stance on games, the other doesn't...guess who wins my vote?

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[krell]

"Are you kidding me? Even if you're a hardcore gamer, games should be the LAST thing you consider as you vote for someone for public office. This article is ridiculous."

The First Amendment is more important than you think.

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[GreggBz]

The article is meaningful in that it shows what politicians are wasting their time and our tax dollars trying to legislate video games. I'd rather they focus on the issues you mentioned. So, invert your thinking a little.

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[C0R1D4N]

"War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming"

Actually, since I have a penis, abortion is the last thing I should consider when voting. I am a hardcore gamer, but I'm still gonna vote out Allen in Virginia. If he does anything to support games it's probably because he sees the gaming industry as the next **AA that will give him money.

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[theckhd]

Well, it's something to consider (first amendment and such), but let's not lose sight of the big picture here.

For example, I don't care if Rick Santorum backs the ESRB or not, his voting record (and general asshattery) is more than enough to dissuade me from voting for him.

I mean seriously, the man is against gay marriage and gay rights, tried to slip Intelligent Design into the No Child Left Behind act, has said that he doesn't belive in privacy rights, and is anti-abortion. If you have an opinion on any of those issues, then his stance on the ESRB is probably irrelevant when you decide whether or not to vote for him.

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[Rhys]

What's that quote? Ah yes, good old Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Erosion of the rights of the people is erosion of the rights of the people reguardless of if it is guns, abortion, or games (read: freedom of speech/expression).

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[0xdeadbeef]

Why? How do those other issues affect male twenty-something gamers with disposible income?

But really, even more relevent than the free speech concerns are the fact that this "issue" is nothing more than manufactured hysteria to drum up support from the "think of the children" crowd. It can be used as litmus test to distinguish people of (some) principle from the exploiters of opportunity.

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[sesshomaru]

Why gaming is important:

1. It's a First Amendment Litmus test issue: My opinion of people jumping on the anti-gaming band-wagon is that they have no respect at all for the First Amendment. This is because I think games are generally milder than what you see on mainstream commercial television (I've watched Scarface on commercial television, I also watch Heroes. Heroes has some disturbing imagery related to my favorite character, scary undead cheerleader girl.) I think the politicians out to ban them have no idea what they are talking about and have a witchhunt mentality. I don't want witchhunters in office, I don't think they'll respect unpopular political dissent any more than they respect games.

2. Politicians are often Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee: In other words, they both voted for the Iraq war, and both support staying the course, etc. The only difference between two politicians might be their stance on games. (Or they might be identical on that, too, but different on taxes... etc.)

3. Politicians may have limited power: Do I care what position someone running for City Council has on the Iraq war? Maybe emotionally, but otherwise it is irrelevant. Do I care what position he has on videogames? Yes, because he may try to, say, ban arcades within the city limits or create an anti-gaming tax.

4. The race is probably not even close: In many cases, it's not going to matter who you vote for, and you might as well stay home. If you care enough to drag yourself to the polls to cast a vote against an anti-game politician, you might also take the time to vote for other candidates and ballot initiatives.

5. Jobs and Economy: See, here's a good example of where one issue is related to another issue. There have been a few anti-game initiatives that have been designed to make games, or certain types of games, economically unviable. These issues impact me as a consumer, and impacts the job market and also my options as a consumer. I've noticed where I am that all the arcades closed. Is part of the reason dealing with these stupid controversies? Who knows, but what I do know is that many politicians wanted the arcades closed and enacted legislation to speed it along (some of the anti-gaming laws particularly targetted arcades with vague restrictions against undefined violence in games which could mean House of the Dead or could mean Tekken). If I wanted to open an arcade as a business and stock the kind of games I want, I'm probably out of luck.

Now, me, I don't see much point in voting for non-Libertarian candidates. My opinion of the two major parties is "A pox on both their houses" and the same goes for most Independents. There are even many Libertarians who aren't orthodox enough for me. That said, I will drag myself to the polls just to spite an anti-game politician by voting against him. Because while I think the two major parties mainly disagree about how to decorate this handbasket we are all in, I am will to vote out of the important political emotion, spite.

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[westlake]

games (read: freedom of speech/expression)

Historically, the American's Freedom in Speech in rooted in a concept of citizenship: the right of every responsible adult to participate in open political debate.

Not the right to market soft-core porn and hard-core violence to minors in the guise of a video game.

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[lbmouse]

"Actually, since I have a penis, abortion is the last thing I should consider when voting. I am a hardcore gamer..."

Then you really have no need for a penis ;).

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[ElleyKitten]

Why? How do those other issues affect male twenty-something gamers with disposible income?

Yeah, I imagine no male twenty-somethings go to war or know people who do, they live in a magic bubble where the economy will never, ever affect their disposible income, and it's completely impossible that they might wind up paying child support because a girl they hooked up with couldn't get an abortion or even care about how decreasing access to abortion would affect women they know?

I'm a gamer too, and I get that this issue is very important. But I will never, ever vote for someone like Santorum or Allen just because of their position on gaming. Games just don't compare (IMHO) to abortion, economy, gay marriage, etc, combined.

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[John Miles]

Historically, the American's Freedom in Speech in rooted in a concept of citizenship: the right of every responsible adult to participate in open political debate.

Got a link? I've checked the hardcopy docs a couple of times, but all I see is some stuff that starts out with, "Congress shall make no law." Nothing about political debate, or Saving The Children, or even responsibility.

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[Control Group]

Funny how you also don't see stuff about "freedom of expression" or "separation of church and state," either. If you read a bit further down, you might even see something about "shall not be infringed," and you won't see the words "privacy" or "abortion" anywhere. If you're feeling particularly intrepid, you can scan all the way down to the ones that have "IX" and "X" in front of them; those are especially exciting.

And none of that is particularly relevant to the way they've been interpreted over the course of US history. Freedom of expression has been read into the first for a long time, separation of church and state is a legal byword, we believe we have a legal right to privacy, it's illegal for a state to make abortion illegal, and the federal government has effectively imposed speed limits and blood alcohol thresholds for the entire country, despite not being granted that power anywhere in the document.

The point, of course, is that the reality of the modern legal landscape can't be denied just because you don't see a specific reference to a particular aspect (in this case, the intersection of juveniles and free speech rights) in the text.

Now, if you want to argue that you should be able to find a specific reference in the Constitution for everything the fed.gov does, I'll be completely on board with that. But that doesn't mean it's the way things actually are.

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[krell]

"Historically, the American's Freedom in Speech in rooted in a concept of citizenship: the right of every responsible adult to participate in open political debate"

Whatever that concept might have been (if it ever was) it was discarded when it came time to come up with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There, no special status is given to political speech, as opposed to, say, talking about food or "Star Trek."

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[flink]

You forgot to link to the most important Santorum site of all!

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[Guppy06]

It's their vote to do with as they please. Darn that republicanism, hm?

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[Rhys]

The responsibility for what a child hears/sees/plays falls to the parent and/or legal guardian of that child. Not the federal nor state nor county nor city government (unless they are acting as legal guardian of, for example, an orphan).

Besides, if you want to talk about soft-corn porn or hard-core violence, you'd be much better served by going after the RIAA's mega-stars and cartoons. Or maybe that evil, bulletproof-nudity D&D thing.

Or feel free to stick your head in the sand and cry "save the children."

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[twistedsymphony]

They sure make bathroom trips to drain the Mt Dew quicker so you can get back to the gaming.

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[WilliamSChips]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[Hemogoblin]

Directly from the first line of TFA:

"GamePolitics is a single-issue site. Video games and politics, thats all we cover.

And while we dont advocate casting your vote based solely on this issue, we know its important to you - otherwise you wouldnt be reading GP."

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[Tinman_au]

Even if it is a "last thing to consider", some of us still consider it.

If your stuck between two evils and can't decide based on the "big issues", who are you to tell people they can't decide based on games related issues?

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[246o1]

There are important Bill of Rights issues, including the First Amendment (and the 5th, 8th, and 9th have been more noticeable of late as well) that are affected by politics. Basically all of these issues are better reasons than someone's stance on game violence to decide who gets your (usually) worthless vote in your (more or less successfully) gerrymandered district.

Of course, hearing politicians try to talk about games is so painful that it makes me want to vote against all of them on the basis of thier stupid way of communicating (bullshit piled upon bullshit, usually).

Re:War, economy, abortion, jobs.... gaming

[ultranova]

Whatever that concept might have been (if it ever was) it was discarded when it came time to come up with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There, no special status is given to political speech, as opposed to, say, talking about food or "Star Trek."

And the Constitution in turn was discarded when it came time to actually rule the country. Consequently, political speech is more protected than commercial speech and showing nipples in television carrie fines for the innocent.

Not surprising, really: after all, your Constitution is just a "goddamned piece of paper" to your supreme leader.

Uh oh

[UbuntuDupe]

Looks like Slashdot just violated the US's campaign finance laws through its promotion or opposition of certain canditates within 30 days of an election, which amounts to an in-kind contribution.

Okay, okay, if it's not illegal yet, it soon will be.

Re:Uh oh

[dlc3007]

insert into PARENT
(CLUE) values (1);
Next time, learn a little about US campaign laws before stating something silly. What you're suggesting is that every news organization in the world is violating the law because they report on candidates.

ESRB is government related.

[krell]

The ESRB is a government and censorship matter when its ratings are used as part of censorship laws.

Re:ESRB is government related.

[hal2814]

No, the government's use of the ESRB is a censorship matter but the ESRB itself is not. I for one like the ESRB. It's not perfect but it does give a ballpark idea of the appropriateness of games for children. I still usually have to do some research of my own on the game's content but it's a nice starting point. Parents and stores do not have to follow the ESRB's recommendation in most cases. In places where ESRB ratings carry some sort of legal weight, the fault lies entirely with the legislators that made such laws, not the independent game rating unit that never intended their ratings to be used in such a manner.

Re:ESRB is government related.

[SuperRob]

The ESRB does a great job ... when parents can be bothered to read the ratings and understand them, and understanding the GAME, too. The ratings aren't enough.

When Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was coming out, I did some market research into the people buying the game. At one point, while standing in a Toys 'R' Us collecting observational data, I noticed a grandmother buying the game. I asked her who she was buying the game for. "My grandson ... he asked for it." I asked her if she was aware of the rating on the game. She wasn't aware that games even had ratings. I showed her where the rating was, and that the game she was buying for her 12-year-old grandson was rated for 17 and up. She was dumbfounded.

So then I asked her, "Ma'am ... what's the name of this game?"

"Grand Theft Auto."

"What does that mean to you?"

She couldn't answer. Apparently, it never even occurred to her that buying a game for her grandson that was titled after a CRIME was somehow a bad idea.

The ESRB is good. There needs to be more, though. Parents (and in this case, grandparents) need to be more proactive in learning what their kids are playing, and more importantly, learn to engage their critical thinking skills when it comes to a kid that might be trying to put one over on ol' Grams.

Re:ESRB is government related.

[UbuntuDupe]

Also, ESRB ratings can, at least in theory, let you know the appropriateness of the game for mixed company, even if you don't care about the kids. If I want to show a game to a group of a adults and their kids, I'd like to know if there's something I should worry about.

However, I'm kind of disappointed here. DDR Extreme obviously doesn't offend me, but you'd think that, being rated E, I could use it in the above situation without having to say "Oh, don't do that song!" However, that version does have lyrics like "I'll rape your rhymes", "buggin' you up" (which sounds VERY SUSPICIOUSLY like "fuckin' you up"), and some videos with offensive dance gestures. Now, again, it obviously doesn't offend me, but if I were to trust that rating and present it in mixed company, with people's kids around, I could earn some enemies real quickly.

Re:ESRB is government related.

[SimDarth]

I had a similar experience when I bought GTA:VC at Toys R Us after it was released. The lady in front of me bought the game and then handed it to her gleeful 9-year-old son. The sales clerk was unusually concerned with this and asked the lady if she was aware of the ESRB rating on the game. She, of course, did not know what he was talking about. He then proceeded to explain the system and the fact that the game was rated M for Mature. She responded by saying that if her son asked for it, it must not be a very bad game. ESRB = Great. Parental responsibility = Even Better.

Re:ESRB is government related.

[amuro98]

I live in California where the stores must - by law - display these huge 5 foot displays explaining the ESRB. This is in addition to the flyers, postcards, and other propaganda that decorates the video game aisles. You don't see anything like that over in the DVD movie section. Despite the 1 foot tall rating letters and the 50 point bold font explaining what "M" means, I still see kids handing GTA or other violent games to their parents, who just drop it into their basket without even looking at the box.

Then again, how many young kids did you see in the theater with you, late on a school night, to see the latest R-rated slasher movie?

Clearly the problem isn't with the rating system(s) but with the idiotic parents who are continually making these decisions that GTA is a great game for their 7 year old after watching Saw III...

Seriously, what happend to parental responsibility?

--
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98

Re:ESRB is government related.

[amuro98]

That's pretty funny.

I remember going to see 'Princess Mononoke' at a small art theater. A couple came in with their young (maybe 4?) daughter. The usher tried to warn them that the movie was pretty violent, but the father waved him off saying he knew about anime (they were a Japanese couple...) Well, if they were expecting something like Totoro or Nausicaa, they were sadly mistaken after a solider got his head blown up (and off) by a demonic arrow within the opening minutes of the movie. The parents were horrified, but their daughter just laughed. LOUDLY. In fact, anytime someone died a gruesome bloody death, the daughter laughed as if it was the funniest thing she'd ever seen.

They didn't leave until near the end when the wolf spirit died, and the daughter asked "Doggie...dead?" and started bawling her eyes out.

Another time after watching Shrek, I overheard a mother tell her children that it was "too bad Fionna turned into an ugly ogre." Sheesh! Talk about missing the point!

--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98

Re:wow, look at all the Democrats...

[Qzukk]

Fox News? Is that you?

So timely.

[grommit]

This is pretty informative. It could have been useful if it was posted yesterday so people could have had time to read it before voting.

Re:wow, look at all the Democrats...

[westlake]

wow, look at all the Democrats...wanting to block free speech!

restricting the sale of adult themed games to adults is not a violation of free speech. protecting the integrity of the ratings system is not a violation of free speech.

Re:wow, look at all the Democrats...

[CrashPoint]

Yes it is.

The right and responsibility to decide what games little Billy can buy belongs solely to his parents.

The right and responsibility to protect the integrity of the ESRB ratings belongs solely to the ESRB.

The government has no business interfering in either.

Re:Oh Please

[CrashPoint]

Hint: The games themselves are not what it's about.

Re:Then so is the FDA...

[krell]

"Then so is the FDA.....You're a friggin idiot"

Hey, I wasn't the one who used the FDA as an example of a non-government agency. Hello? knock knock. Does the top-level domain .gov mean anything to you?

Re:wow, look at all the Democrats...

[Aadain2001]

Those are what I refer to as "political democrats". They don't really believe in anything, they just want power. The best way to get power is to find an issue that makes people afraid (playing video games will make little Billy kill people at school) and tell them you are the only one with a plan to 'fix' the problem. Both dems and reps do this, so it is nothing new. Personally, if the DNC decided to run Hilary Clinton for Prez in '08, I wouldn't vote for her, and neither would a majority of the registered democrats. She's the worst of the power grabbers; no real beliefs, just a desire for power.

Re:wow, look at all the Democrats...

[andphi]

Interesting insights. Just out of curiousity, do you put Bill Clinton in the same category? It also makes for an interesting contrast between Leiberman and H.R. Clinton. Lieberman being concerned about violent videogames I understand and believe. He strikes me as generally sincere. That and he has a history on the subject. Clinton jumping on the bandwagon just looks political and reactive.

ahem. Yes it is

[krell]

"restricting the sale of adult themed games to adults is not a violation of free speech."

Yes, it is a violation if the government gets involved in any way whatsoever. We can argue whether or not this censorship of free speech is justified, but that does not change it from being a censorship/free-speech issue at all.

Re:wow, look at all the Democrats...

[night_flyer]

at least the republicans kick out their pedophiles... Instead of praising them... like Gerry Studds

Re:Oh Please

[meringuoid]

I can think of at least 20 more important issues that would decide how I would vote today before video games comes into play.

There are people who vote based on something they do for one hour a week. Most of us here spend a lot more of our lives gaming than anyone not a priest does at church. Why shouldn't we vote against politicians who want to restrict our freedom to play what the hell we like?

McGavick quote is wrong

[WillAffleckUW]

It's just posturing really.

But hey, I live in WA. So you believe anything you want.

Re:wow, look at all the Democrats...

[kinglink]

Kudos for saying that (and how can you not. "Oh I'm moving to New York and I'll be your senator")

Of course listening to how "they" (her supporters) talk about her every republican and democrat will love her, I won't, a lot of people won't if the other guy has a pulse. Personally I think they are forgeting her three flaws. Female, Clinton (sorry clinton supporters, there's people who will never vote for anyone even in his administration), and Democrat (ok it's a party not a flaw, but I didn't want to sink to calling her ugly)

Not all democrats are bad, not all republicans are bad, but certain ones are just disgusting and she's up there with Teddy Kennedy. (though Teddy's problem is probably that if he quits politics he has nothing else to do now that he gave up the whoring and the boozing).

The worse though is how moral the democrats are trying to look, while just 8 years ago it was "So what if Clinton cheated on his wife with an intern?". The democrats really have a huge problem if they don't win either house tonight, as their party structure is extremely weak right now and they need to solidify if they even want a chance in 08. Acting like Hillary should be considered a contender (or Obama who no one really has heard anything of in the last 2 years) has me shaking my head.

Then again the Republicans don't have a clear cut winner, but they arn't pretending to nominate weak minority candidates (weak as in chances to get into office) in an attempt to look like they "care". They have their share of problems but at least they are presenting a semi unified front that hasn't changed.