Clinton and Lieberman Ally With ESRB

Along with Penny Arcade, the ESRB can now apparently count Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman as allies. GamePolitics reports that they'll be participating in an ad blitz for the organization, aimed at promoting awareness of the videogame rating system. From the article: "This is a major coup for the video game industry. Senators Clinton and Lieberman are co-sponsors of the Family Entertainment Protection Act, video game legislation currently before the Senate. Sen. Lieberman applied the political pressure in the mid-90's that essentially led to the development of the industry's rating system. Sen. Clinton led the political charge against 2005's Hot Coffee scandal. The question that remains unanswered is - what motivated these two watchdogs to partner with the video game industry on this initiative? Did the industry perhaps make concessions or give assurances?" 1up has further commentary on this announcement, including an insightful G.I. Joe reference.

Comments

Completely ridiculous and unconstitutional

[dada21]

For the latter, this is unconstitutional, except our current SCOTUS, Congress and Executives like to read more into the Constitution in terms of their power. They think the Interstate Commerce Clause gives them power to regulate, tax and tariff everything, even though that isn't the intent of the clause -- it was written to make sure that the States do not harm interstate commerce, and the Feds had power to make sure the States didn't get in the way of trade. In fact, until the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 [1] (thanks to Lincoln's setting it up in his treason war), that was how it was used. The final blow to the intent came in Wickard v. Filburn[2] in 1942 -- finally the Feds had not just trumped the States, they also took the power to actually RESTRICT commerce, not just make sure it was free and unencumbered by State laws.

As to the ridiculousness of the law, purchases are for the consumer to judge, not the law. If you want something and someone is willing to provide it, who is the State to decide that you can't transact? Parents should watch what they buy their children -- if they don't have enough time to research something, don't buy it. If you're really concerned, there are numerous organizations of EVERY kind that will rate the product for you, like Underwriter's Laboratories decide what is safe to use and what isn't. Buy from retailers that check the product out, or buy what is rated by a company that YOU align with morally or in terms of safety. If I want to buy a game about being a gay pimp and slapping around the 15 year old prostitutes, and someone wants to make that game, we should be free to transact the trade. If you decide that a game about fishing is cruel to animals, don't buy the game. Why should the State restrict or promote either?

Actually, this does make sense -- but not from a consumer perspective but from a cronyism or paternalism perspective. When laws go Federal, they create a large legal barrier to entry. These laws are WANTED by the large gaming companies -- small companies will be unable to afford whatever paperwork, overhead and bureaucracy exists after the law. This is akin to minimum wage laws that are written and supported by union cronies -- it keeps the powerful more powerful and harms the chances of the weak to actually compete and topple the powerful. So in reality, these laws are not pro-family but pro-crony. This is not capitalism, this is mercantilism, and as I mentioned in the first part, this is exactly what Lincoln and the Whigs wanted -- business regulation to prevent competition against their friends in business. He fought a war in order to get that power, and to do so he tricked people into believing the war was against slavery. Just like Clinton and Lieberman will say that this law is about protecting families.

The ESRB is just a cartel. Look at their joining policies and note "Sign ESRB Privacy Online's License Agreement and pay appropriate membership fee" and see that all this does is make competition fall away due to regulation. Nice job, folks who voted this past election.

Re:Completely ridiculous and unconstitutional

[drinkypoo]

If you want something and someone is willing to provide it, who is the State to decide that you can't transact?

No kidding! If I want to buy that weapons-grade nuclear material, by god, they should stay out of my way!

Granted that's a ridiculous comparison when we're talking about video games, but I want to highlight the problem with your statement - it's too broad.

Now, with that said, I mostly agree with what you've said here, and the actual reasons for the rating system[s]. I don't agree that there should be a mandated rating system. I think that having optional rating, where retailers are free to not carry unrated games, is reasonable. But, as distasteful as I find the prospect, I think there is an argument to be made for not allowing sales of unrated (or adult-rated) games to minors.

Here it comes: Until you have your legal majority you are pretty much obligated to do as your parents instruct you. If they can't control you they can always give you to the state. To me, this legal reality indicates a view shared by the majority of the population that minors are not capable of making decisions on their own. I agree that this is more or less true for the population at large, regardless of their age. While it's pretty true that no one under the age of, say, 12 should be on their own (for logistical reasons if not those based on decision-making) it becomes less true that there should be any dividing line as one gets older. And many of the people I know over the age of 18 shouldn't be allowed to leave the house without supervision, so it's not like kids are the only ones.

Back to the meat, though: given that guardians have the legal right to control their charges, it only stands to reason that the laws should help them enforce that control. Again, I am not really debating the value of such a level of control here; it's way too complicated an issue to get involved in now. Regardless, such a system will not affect anyone with majority. Many retailers already aren't carrying those types of games. Wal*Mart, Barnes & Noble, you name it, they're probably not carrying some games.

But what I do object to is any system that mandates rating. If we don't do it with film, it seems ridiculous to do it to video games. It's not here yet, but it's probably coming, because we have to THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

That's funny.

[justkarl]

Wasn't Hillary quoted as saying about a month ago that the ESRB needed goverment oversight to "regulate the ratings"? And no, I don't think this qualifies.

Sidle up to the right

[eddy the lip]

The question that remains unanswered is - what motivated these two watchdogs to partner with the video game industry on this initiative? Did the industry perhaps make concessions or give assurances?"

There's all kinds of shenanigans that go on with corporate donations to candidates, but I think there's an easier explanation for this. Sen. Clinton seems to be trying to woo the soft Republicans - I mean those middle-of-the-road, non-neo-con, socially conservative types. She can't do it on abortion issues, or gay marriage without angering her Democratic base, so she's picked an issue that's fairly neutral but has that nice "family values" feel to it. And it's video games, so it's not like she's giving up an important issue or anything.

Except, of course, that this ignores First Amendment implications. I mostly like Sen. Clinton and Lieberman (even if he is a bit wishy-washy, I don't think he's Evil), but if this is their motivation, it makes me wonder about either their ability to discern what important issues for the future actually are, or that this issue is an acceptable loss in the bid to win back the White House. Either one seems bad.

PS. I'm one of those pinko-Canadians, so for me American politics is mostly a grand spectator sport. Flame on!

Re:Sidle up to the right

[Tackhead]

> [Sen. Clinton] can't do it on abortion issues, or gay marriage without angering her Democratic base, so she's picked an issue that's fairly neutral but has that nice "family values" feel to it. And it's video games, so it's not like she's giving up an important issue or anything.

Sidle up to the right. Yep, it's all just a pose.

You're forgetting the PMRC. Back in the 80s, you see, politicians hadn't heard much about video games, but they sure knew about rock music. The PMRC was founded by a lady named Tipper Gore, and is why the uncensored versions of CDs have those little "Explicit Lyrics" stickers on them - so you know which ones to buy. You might have heard of Tipper's husband. I hear he almost got the Presidency in 2000. Gosh, the Democratic party has such a rich heritage of defending freedoms :)

> PS. I'm one of those pinko-Canadians, so for me American politics is mostly a grand spectator sport. Flame on!

Ah, that explains it. In Canuckistan, you actually have different political parties that have different platforms. We don't do that down here. We have one Party, and it's the Government Party. The Elephant wing of the Government Party censors your video games because they're afraid you might see boobs, and the Jackass wing of the Government Party censors your video games because they're afraid you might see explosions.

The Party in shares its work between its two wings on most other issues, too. Elephants want to put a webcam in your home to make sure you're not a smoking pot, and to save you from the terrorists, and Jackasses want to put webcams in your home to make sure you're not smoking tobacco and to save you from junk food.

Re:Sidle up to the right

[Chris Burke]

The above is also the reason that I'm not registered with any political party and get annoyed when someone thinks I am criticizing a politician because of their political persuasion. The truth is, both major parties in this country disgust me almost equally.

It's the truth. And the thing about assumed political affiliation -- I hate that with a passion. In the past I've been called a "Republican attack dog" for criticizing Bill Clinton and a "Democrat stooge" for criticizing George W. in the same thread. It just boggled my mind.

By the way, I'll let you in on a secret: When somebody says "You are only saying that because of your party affiliation!", they are actually telling you how they think and where their words come from. Watch them -- the ones who say that are always the ones whose egos are joined at the hip to whatever political group they support.

Me, I look at individuals and what they say, not whatever granfaloon they say they're part of. You could probably describe my views generally as being liberal, but I'm not dumb enough to think I'll agree with someone just because they use the same word to describe their values. Just like I'm a Christian but I don't automatically trust anyone who claims to be one too.

Re:Mr Clinton was fine compared to the others, but

[drinkypoo]

Republicans and Democrats are both populists. The traditional definition of the parties is that reps were conservatives who want to tell you what to do in your bedroom but want to leave business unregulated, while dems were liberals who want to tell you what you can do in your business but don't want to tell you what you can do with your wabbly bits and so on. Today both parties are populist through and through. Reps want to tell you what you can't do. Dems want to tell you what you have to let other people do, in your house, and in your business. Reps and dems alike want to make deals that benefit their cronies (and themselves) in business.

Basically, we have a party that favors feudalism (libertarians) and a shitload of populists (everyone else) to choose from today. There really isn't any significant number of honest to god liberals any more, and I don't think you can find a real conservative either.