Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Would Crack Down On Game Content
thefickler sends us word that Hilary Clinton has taken a public stand in favor of shielding children from game and other animation content that she deems inappropriate. Quote: "When I am president, I will work to protect children from inappropriate video game content." Politically, this puts her in company with Republican Mitt Romney on the subject of game censorship. Her fellow Democrats are content to let the industry self-regulate.
Is all about control of the people. Remember this when you go to vote.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Who's yo daddy now? Hillary Clinton, that's who.
Now parent can focus on what's most important to them... consuming propaganda.
I mean seriously... she won't be cool Aunt Hilary, she's going to be "Mom."
Mom, can I play this video game?
Mom, can I go outside and play?
Mom, can I go out with this cute girl? (Hypothetical)
This single issue is so important that I will vote for Gulianni. His policies may include 1984 type directives, but at least he will not make GTA V illegal.
And when I'm president, I'll work to protect children from Hilary Clinton.
...as I read it, she wouldn't cut down on game content at all, but the availability to kids of games containing that content.
That makes some sense - just like rating movies.
Awww. isnt that sweet. a nice empty campaign promise that doesnt mean crap but sure gets peoples feelings going about protecting the children from the evils of video games.
:(
Sure lets her avoid all the major problems too. healthcare, social security, the wars on various stupid shit, the national debt, china, the middle east, big giant corporations raping the world for profit. And all the other problems someone in power SHOULD be doing something about.
Its all ok so long as we protect the children.
Damm. I need to move. But theres noplace left that is sane....
Democrats _love_ Hollywood, the RIAA, MPAA, DMCA and anything that gives media more money and control. Who's the little cheapskate when it comes to greasing politician's palms? You are, gaming industry, yes you are!
Is "protecting children from game content" the equivalent to "game censorship"? I have no problem with game designers putting any content whatsoever into their games, but I don't necessarily want my children playing those games.
The movie studios have a clear self-regulating policy in place (through the MPAA ratings scheme) and no-one complains about minors getting into R rated movies (or buying/hiring them on home video formats).
Why cant the politicians and the industry come together and set up a system thats just like the MPAA ratings system and policed the same way? Oh wait, they did, its called the ESRB.
I guess the problem is the small number of highly publicized incidents (Hot Coffee, various games where the clothes and human body are seperate meshes and therefore you can "remove" the clothes and get a "naked body" and others) where the ESRB has been forced to change the rating given to a game.
What the video game industry needs is a lobby group as powerful as the MPAA is (they have a lobby group but it doesn't have much influence in the halls of power). They should try and get the retail stores on side (perhaps get the big retailers to push arguments like "we do everything we can to check that people are legally allowed to buy these games" or something)
A few examples:
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. A store selling 18+ games to twelve-year-olds should be punished.
Good idea, honestly. Sorry, but I found Hot Coffee pretty stupid.
Again, I approve of that idea, greatly.
After all, this legislation is going to affect underage people, unlike Jack Thompson's ideas of banning such games for everyone.
Government needs to stop playing parent and stick to what their real job is (if anyone in government even knows what their job is!). I'll be damned if I'm going to let government tell me how to raise my kids.
PGA
Since when did parenting become the job of a president? It's ridiculous to even suggest that principality an morality of children should be governed.
And why is the debate on evil video games on again? If a poor kid is exposed to violent games, then parents are at fault, not the government. And if the parents don't give a shit about games, who's to say it stops there? Should Clinton regulate movies too? And what about televised programs? Should kids go to bed at 8pm?
Full Tilt
I've really been trying to figure out how I was going to vote for in the primaries. Since I'm registered Democrat in Florida, I can only vote to Democrats in the primary. I like Kucinich, but know he is terribly unlikely to win the primaries let alone the general election. That left Obama and Clinton as reasonable choices for me since I'm not a fan of Edwards. I've been leaning toward Obama because Clinton just seems to be too populist, almost as if her stance on issues is determined by the changing winds of public opinion. Despite his lack of experience, I think I'm going to have to vote for Obama because this sort of thing goes directly against my belief that government should be getting up into this type of thing.
*emo sigh* I'm such a tortured mix of liberal and conservative. No one gets me.
Aside from the fact that the gaming business is now bigger than Hollywood ever was, the main problem here is exposure of minors to content that could be deemed corrupting.
The game industry has adopted the same solution as the film industry - they rate their product according to age group. The difference is that the ratings are circumvented far more often.
Parents think the word "Game" and their internal association is probably something like "Monopoly". Despite the obvious flaws in the idea that games are like movies, they are very similar in the level of emotionally involving content they can contain. If anything, games can involve you far more emotionally, because they cast you as a protagonist. I had serious qualms about offing little girls in BioShock, even though I knew intellectually that they were nothing but a digital asset in a game database.
I don't think the games of my youth were a contributor to violent behaviour, but who would equate knocking a few pixel squares into each other with real-world violence? Modern game media represents real-world situations with increasing fidelity, and I wouldn't be surprised if the game equivalent of a "video nasty" was responsible for at least a few wet bedsheets if not some more disturbing turns of behaviour.
But the solution is not to ban mature content in games, the solution is to assist the content provider in giving their recommended restriction levels a little more teeth ; if only by engaging in the same kind of marketing campaigns that are common enough to raise awareness of film certification.
hillary's just a bit player in this game.
we're intending for the deceptive murderous life0cidal corepirate nazi execrable to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather'.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying
meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US;
gov. bush denies health care for the little ones
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html
whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven
(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on/.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece
consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?
Nuff Said.
...do you not think that a little bit isn't going to rub off. Song lyrics, tv, game content...it's all the same gig. Likely it's a calculated grab at the few democrats that are also evangelicals (yes, there are a few). It's getting mighty tight in the primary states so if she can sneak something a little under the radar, but do it with the right voters then maybe, just maybe, it'll be enough to push her over the top.
Not like I needed an excuse, but here's a perfect reason to vote against Senator Clinton. Gamers in Iowa and New Hampshire need to show up and make their presence known with their votes.
Starting next week, all passwords will be entered in Morse code
And it's always the Dems doing it. (Remember Tipper Gore vs. Ministry (the band)?)
Note however, once in office it's all reduced to huffing and puffing and no real progress.
It's the Democrats equivalent of the "abortion issue" where they make a lot of noise to get that particular fascist-leaning voters to vote for them. Then claim "well the rest of congress didn't want to do that" when that same slice of fundies starts to expect action.
Its BS to get votes from soccer moms and other retards.
Once you are old enough to see a few election cycles, you start to notice this stuff.
Nothing will come of it.
Even Democrats who thought Bill was a great President have to realise that Hillary is not Bill. And voting for her, won't get Bill back into the Whitehouse through a side-door. She is hungry for power, and the Bush admin have invested a LOT of unchecked power in the Oval Office.
She is Machiavellian in the truest sense of the word and makes Il Prince look like Mother Teresa.
This reminds me of a pseudo-story that came from rush limbaugh...
Hillary: "I'm doing this, for the children"
Reporter: "Hillary, what is your stance on... nooo! Hillary is good for the USA and everything it stands for!"
Hillary: "I'm doing this. For the children."
But seriously - this can't be good for us gamers. The ultimate responsibility lies with the parents who purchase these games for children. Why punish the mature adults because some parent won't even read the back of the game or the 'M' rating label that is on it as well?
Out of the numerous nutjobs in the race for president this upcoming election, the only one I've seen that probably wouldn't screw everything up for the rest of us in matters like these is Ron Paul. However, I have a strong feeling he may end up going the way of Ross Perot (you know... the one with the huge ears...).
Everyone else is probably just going to continue the current administrations game of limiting our domestic rights further, as a means of protecting us from ourselves, while doing next to nothing to give us a true exit strategy for the crap in the middle east.
8==8 Bones 8==8
"Whenever I meet young parents... they tell me that they are worried about losing control over the raising of their own children and about ceding the responsibility of implicating values and behaviors to a multi-dimensional media marketplace over which they have no control..."
Really? I meet a lot of parents who rent those games because their kids explicitly ask for them, and maybe, just maybe, the content in video games just doesn't hold a candle to that in television, the internet, and perhaps even their own home lives...
Life's tough. I welcome the idea of a low-bias rating system. I do not like the idea of wasting so much time on government oversight of video games, however. With what's on our plate for the next four years, video games shouldn't even be registering -- blame the reporter for asking or blame Hillary for being so prepared, either way it irks me.
The idea is hillaryous
These measures seem a little extreme when compared to the lack of protection offered to children from adult content on the unfiltered internet. For once I don't really disagree with her, but this seems to me to be an extreme measure which really amounts to putting one's finger in the damn.
She supports a measure that sails safely past the first ammendment and rallies concered parents who aren't looking at the big picture. If this was really implemented it would do little to protect childeren and cause a whole lot of greif for the poor schleps who manage stores that sell games.
There should probably be similar protection on adult content games as there is on printed adult content. I guess at the retail level this is easier to control. Why is it that politicians can't seem to think past brick and mortar?
One twelve-year-old can be much more cruel and violent to another twelve-year-old, moreso than any video game could ever hope to be.
_I_ have to pay higher taxes because you can't control what video games your kids are buying? Take some freaking responsibility here god dammit. And yes it's all about me, because I don't give a damn about your kids. They're not my responsibility, They're YOURS.
Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
Fixed that for you.
Honestly, I doubt that H. Clinton gives one whit about games. But her focus groups tell her it'll get her a couple points with the "Think Of The Children" voting segment, so she'll say she's "against violent video games." She'll say whatever'll get the voters off to get elected (the same can be said of many politicians).
On a somewhat related note, Ms. Clinton has always struck me as the kind of person who, if presented with a pistol and a note from that stated if she killed the people on the attached list, she'd be out the door, gun in hand, before checking that the thing was even loaded.
"I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
Not that it's any of my business (being English an' all), but I wouldn't trust a candidate who began a pledge with 'When I am President...'.
I wonder if she'd be opposed to a game where the President of the United States gets a bj in the oval office, since she didn't seem to be too bothered by it in REAL LIFE.
You can make whatever law you want but they are useless unless you enforce them and creating draconian laws that are selectively enforced will make a mess of the courts. It's like immigration laws. Everyone largely ignored them so illegal immigration became a serious problem. We were told for years enforcement wouldn't work and wasn't either possible or humane. Now that a few states like Arizona are enforcing the laws the situation is slowly correcting itself in those states. People are leaving because it's difficult for them to stay. Make it difficult on the store owners if they sell to minors but the far bigger issue is parents buying the games for the kids. The government can't regulate morality as much as it'd like to. If they try to protect people from themselves then we get back to the good ole days of Hayes where the raciest thing you could make were Disney cartoons. Yes people were protected from nudity, violence and bad language but eventually filmmakers kept pushing the limits until Hayes went away. There are plenty of people that feel we need a return of that kind of puritanical code for video games but it's going to be a tough sell and the only way they can do it is the way they do everything else, chip away at it until they get their way. Even back in the 70s they had rules limiting one act of violence per half hour on TV. It's why the old Barreta show went off the air when it was on top. Robert Blake, love or hate the guy, refused to abide by the rule and shut the show down rather than make the scripts conform to the TV standard. Parents don't want to say no to their kids so I think it's only a matter of time before they'll embrace rules limiting the types of violence in games since in their minds games are by definition intended for kids. The fact the vast majority of mature games are played by adults won't be considered the good of the children will be placed above individual rights. It sounds good on paper but it all comes down to people not wanting to be responsible for themselves. I can't say no to my kid so take away the temptation. The best thing the industry can do to defend themselves is to come up with as many non violent options as possible but the next magical trick is to get people to buy them. Some sell well now but the point is the sin factor. Kids want the games in part because they aren't supposed to have them. One approach might be to make the separation even more radical. Parents accept violence in the US far quicker than sex. Add extreme sexual content to the violent games instead of taking it away. Not only is it violent but it's pornographic. Most parents may buy their kid a violent video game but how many would buy them a porno tape? It's silly but if parents won't police themselves then it's a heavy handed way to force their hands. Add nudity to the covers so the store owners can't even display them and they have to be sold from behind the counter. Like I say silly but they wouldn't have any excuses then. "Gee I didn't realize the game was adult when I sold it to the kid". That argument becomes moot when the cover is two naked chicks with machine guns and has a title "Lesbian Drug Dealing Hitmen of Crack Avenue."
Come on Ron Paul supporters, you're falling down on your job to pollute the intertubes with your candidate's name.
smells to me like the reincarnation of Tipper Gore and her crusading about 15-20 years ago...
That being said, any game under the sun can be 'upgraded' to have adult content if it's on a system like a PC or a hacked console. "Seasame Street the Game" could be 'upgraded' to have a nude Big Bird by a third party. Under those criteria, 100% of video games should be rated X (NC-17) because they **could be modified** to have offending content.
Every time laws about videogames come up someone says that it would be good because it would make them like film ratings. This is incorrect.
In the USA no other medium has its ratings enforced by the government. Not the music industry, not the comic book industry, not the internet, not tv, and not the film industry. The MPAA ratings are self-enforced. There is no law against selling a ticket to an R rated or unrated film to anyone. If someone under 17 isn't allowed into an R-rated movie without an adult it is because the movie industry is enforcing those rules, not the government.
There are state and local laws against pornography but to the best of my knowledge there are no state or national laws regulating the sale of violent forms of entertainment.
Numerous laws from places like Indianapolis, St. Louis county, Oklahoma, and Illinois have all been ruled unconstitutional. To single out videogames for regulation would require a mountain of evidence that they are harmful to minors. No such mountain exists.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
... naturally, are not happy: http://bp0.blogger.com/_zYcZKDn2CMM/Rew9CIgSzgI/AAAAAAAAAZg/RO7rBcYkyR8/s1600-h/Hillary.jpg
Watch on Google Video
Zeitgeist
End Game
Ring of Power versions 1 + 2
Chances are you had no idea. Hilary hangs out and attends the meetings that plan the future of your world. These meetings are packed with the elite from various nations and have been running your currencies since history. The plan has nothing but serfdom for you in effect. Thats why Ron Paul seems so extreme. You are conditioned to expect nothing and get nothing, while you are actually raped of your labor illegally and have less. It's bad sheeple, real bad. Do some research and entertain the idea of deconstruction government. The silly problem of health care wouldn't exist of you weren't robbed of 1/3 of your labor. All the so called issues that they spit about simply aren't issues of a government, they are issues of a broken sheeple. Listen to Ron Paul, at the heart of cutting off the cysts.
I'm sure that since this is a negative article against a prominent democrat, that it's all just a big misunderstanding.
Only a parent knows their kids and as such are the only ones who would be able to determine what their kid views or plays. I've grew up playing all the Mortal Kombat's, and GTA's and every other blood filled gore-fest game out there. Today my game of choice is World of Warcraft. And yet I have never gone out and shot or stabbed or done anything of that nature, I kept good grades in school and hold a steady job as an adult. ANYONE who blames video games for violent acts must be sour for not getting their turn around the Nintendo as a kid. Has science proven that video games can raise various chemical levels in the brain, yes. Can those chemicals cause an imbalance that might take someones judgment or reason or control away from them, sure. But do you see 9.3 million WOW subscribers, who do nothing but kill kill kill, make some stuff, and kill some more, going out into the real world and playing out this fantasy, NO. Are some people affected by video games, well the answer is yes but those same people could be affected by movies, books, alcohol, or any other stimuli in their life and its those peoples parents that would be aware of that. Am I blaming parents? Yes I am, but before you go blasting me on that stance, I'm a parent. I'm a parent who enjoys a wide assortment of entertainment, from comedy to sci-fi to horror. I'm a parent who hopes to be able to enjoy good entertainment with my kids, but if there is ever a doubt in my mind as to how my child reacts to any form of that entertainment I'll be talking with my child, not just banning them from it, in the end if thats whats needed then so be it.
But, seriously: www.ronpaul2008.com
Don't know if you can still switch parties at this point, but you should look into it. Anyone who has feelings about what the government "shouldn't be getting into" is probably a Ron Paul supporter who doesn't realize it yet.
Yes, it will. Any state will have provisions for state control of some activities. The degree of "socialism" can be defined as the amount of intervention over activities that aren't strictly necessary to be under state control.
I wouldn't like to have police entirely under private control, but I wouldn't like to pay for all the expenses banks have with security, either. Same as fire departments, would you agree to have your taxes pay for all the expenses Exxon and Texaco have with fire fighting in their refineries?
BTW, I don't live in the USA and I'm not a citizen there, but I can understand their worry about socialized medicine. I live in Brazil, where universal healthcare is guaranteed under the Constitution. I pay high taxes to maintain a system that doesn't work at all, so I must also pay separately to have private healthcare.
Have you ever wondered why there are so many more American tourists in Europe than European tourists in the USA? Do you think European people have no interest in visiting New York or Hollywood, or Las Vegas, or Yellowstone, or the Grand Canyon or so many other sites they have seen in books and movies? Or is it that after paying their taxes the best they can do is visit some town in Europe?
I watched this hour-long video of Ron Paul speaking at Google headquarters earlier this year -- he's pretty explicit about which programs he finds to be "most offensive" and which are low-priority. The Fed is his number one enemy, with the IRS and Dept of Ed coming in close behind. Most of the other agencies and programs are the types of things that he would only work on getting rid of once the economy recovers from the removal of the tumorous cancers like the Fed and the IRS.
Which will happen right about the same time that Senators decide that Raph Koster's moobs are as happy a place as Paris' Hilton when it comes to choosing where to make the motorboating sound. With the exception of Larry Craig (R-estroom), MPAA's main form of influence on the Senate is just fine. Back to our current crop of candidates, every candidate on the Democratic side would choose the Hollywood starlet over the GDC conference speaker. (Except maybe for Kucinich, who'd be crazy to risk his current marriage over anything any MPAA lobbyist could offer :)
"that "she" deems inappropriate" So now she wants to be the final word on that subject too, Its funny how all these politicians speak for themselves instead of all of us as they should do. I am going to do this, I am going to do that. Total Bullshit. It just shows how out of touch all of them are, living in their own Little political world while the rest of us live out in the real world. This is supposed to be a Government by the People and for the People, not what "she" deems inappropriate. Another Napoleon wanna be, but in reality is just another Nero. Sorry Hilary, we don't care what You want! Speak for the people not just your political party. Nevermind, just shut up.
If you took the adult material out of Second Life, it would actually destroy some genuine relationships.
For some odd reason, neither Slashdot nor the GamePolitics site made it simple to find the original CSM survey. After a little digging through GamePolitics, here is the link: http://www.commonsensemedia.org/news/specials/question1.
I was leaning toward Hillary until I read this survey. She really intends to spend millions of dollars just to (1) determine the effects of games on children (how many times has this already been done in academia?) and (2) to police vendors based on ESRB ratings that are only slightly less suspect than MPAA ratings? This is insane. I'd far prefer to see those same tax dollars put back into the school systems to better educate the children.
Follow the link above and read for yourself. But, to summarize, Clinton and Edwards both skew closely to Romney on this issue. Obama seems the only one who prefers to educate parents and then let them decide what is best.
Perhaps my vote in the caucuses will yet go to Obama...
This makes me think, is there a link to where I can check out all of the independent candidates that are running for president? I'm truly getting sick of the two major parties.
Thanks
~ My rebellion starts at the ballot box
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
"...Sleep comes like a drug in God's country Sad eyes, crooked crosses in God's country..."
She was was a founding member of the PMRC, which actively focused on censoring music, especially getting rid of that evil, evil rap music.
Jory
This story isn't realistically about Clinton wanting to crack down on game content. She says nothing about game content legislation, and neither does FEPA (according to the story - I haven't read the whole bill, though). She's just saying that she'd like to make it more difficult to sell violent games to kids who shouldn't be seeing such violence, and to fine those people that do so. I don't see why so many folks are taken aback by the notion of not letting a 10-year old play a game that lets them blow a virtual person's head off. We don't let them see that on TV or in movies, why should we let them see it in ever more realistic video games? Societies, in my opinion, should work hard to protect young people from violence until they're old enough to realize what violence in these media really means. And right now there's a huge gaping hole in that protective veil in the form of video games. Just like for movies, this doesn't mean regulating content - as the poster says Clinton wants to do - it's about regulating who gets to see the game, and I don't really see what the problem is with that. If the game makers, in turn, pull violence and sex out of the games to sell to a broader audience, like the movies do, then that's their problem. That said, I'm an Obama supporter (right now), and I like blowing zombies' heads off while standing in a church as much as anyone else. I just don't want my 10-year-old brother doing so as well. I support a similar regulation of game sales as what we see in movies - no more, no less. The way I see it, it should be the parents' responsibility to watch what their kids are playing, but if we can offer another layer of protection, why wouldn't we?
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
"that she deems inappropriate". So 1 person can call the shots and say what's appropriate and inappropriate? That's why this world is going straight to hell. Some cooperate CEO gets to decided what we can see on television, and if they don't like it, they got the big CENSOR button right next to them during live TV (Fox and Verizon). If someone at an ISP doesn't like what he sees online, he can get it pulled by putting whoever owns the site under legal pressure. Censorship is the evil of the 21st century. Why is it that in America, the land of the free, the free part takes back seat to politics?
Clinton is not trying to control what games get made, or the game makers! Clinton is about trying to stop Adult games getting into the hands of children, not the production of Adult games. As she describes, this is through fining the stores if they sell games to 'minors', in the same aspect of liquor. She has always had this stance and it seems every time this issue comes up, people mis-read the headline, and assume the content in the worst manner. The worst part is people vote based on the headlines they read.
Which age slice, which cultural slice are most voter located right now ? Certainly not in the slice of those wanting to play doom 2 , or whatever. They are in the older slice, valuing sound bite like "family value". The class which fear those "hoodlum" playing game and hearing hard rock. Forward or backward 25 years and instead of speaking of wars, economy and other important stuff, politics will offer sound bite on what the bulk of the voter WANTS to hear, not on what they NEED to hear. This has always been so. Politics whatever you name them (kings, president, despot, comrade president , or house representant) need a passive populace to exert their power. A populace which interrest itself in politics is dangerous.
You know, last time Hilary did this (along with her buddy Lieberman), she suddenly and very publically changed her position after a donation from the ESA. Is Hilary merely begging in the public arena for some more cash from the ESA? At want point is this just blackmail?
"She's just another authoritarian, like all the other front runners."
he actually understands the game.
Well then she can go to hell!
Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
you remember a few years ago on the WWF or WWE or whatever you kids call it these days (i don't watch any more...) Vince McMan's(SP?) (not sure really dose it matter?) daughter Stephanie McMan(SP?) (again not sure it really matters); would talk about "HER HUSBAND, TRIPLE H...." in that annoying high pitched grating voice.... she kind of reminds me of her... only now its: "MY HUSBAND BILL CLINTON..." well you get the point... what dose all of this have to do with video games? Nothing but video game ratings have nothing to do with the War in Iraq, The cost of Health Care to seniors, raising tax rates, or unemployment. Wow, and they said wrestling knowledge was useless.... wait wasn't that .. oh never never mind.
From TFA:
"I was motivated to take action when I found out that there was embedded illicit sexual content in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The [ESRB] was unaware of the embedded content. I called on the FTC to investigate the source of the content and, as a result, the company issued a recall of the game."
Hillary takes full credit for getting GTA:SA off the shelves. That's not limiting who gets access, that's eliminating access.
Video games are already rated. Parents need to be aware of what their kids are buying, and the current ratings system allows this.
Also, her position in that bill was to create an oversight board to make sure the ESRA was giving "correct" ratings. If you'd like to see her full waffle on the issue (including the part where she shuts up in trade for campaign cash) check out Ars Technica's coverage of the dustup.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051212-5740.html
According to the Ars-ticle, even Jack Thompson knew the bill was a bad idea.
Think about what that means - Hillary is both more dumb and more rabid than Jack Thompson.
Whenever I meet young parents... they tell me that they are worried about losing control over the raising of their own children and about ceding the responsibility of implicating values and behaviors to a multi-dimensional media marketplace over which they have no control...
No, Hilary, that's just you. I'm a 40-year-old parent of two children, ages five and two, the former with autism and a severe heart condition. And I let him game all the time. He relates much better to the screen than to people and that's just how he is with that condition. Gaming is something we can enjoy together, and I don't want a totalitarian shrew presuming to make decisions as to how I raise my children.
Do I think that parents younger than me want the government making these decisions for them? Surely you jest.
I wonder if HIlary knows the degree to which she pisses off the under-40 vote with her anti-gaming crusade. She acts like she's in touch with young people, when in fact, she's already old and irrelevant.
It's too bad, actually: when I heard her on Olbermann's podcast, she sounded like a rational adult, unlike the fear-mongering Republicans with their paranoid fantasies and their apparent belief that Jack Bauer himself will personally report to them on Inauguration Day. But like her husband, the only civil liberty she actually supports in is abortion, and that's not good enough.
She's a big lobby fascist. That's why you should vote for Ron Paul.
Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
Which brings me to my most obvious--and quite probably offensive to quite a lot of people--opinion that if a kid hacks a game to see all of 8 pixels representing nipple, then that kid should be commended for his perseverance and technical skill.
As it is, they take his porn and video games away, and 3 years later, send him to go kill brown people. For The Cause.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
No, seriously. He's worth investigating. I will probably vote for him, because I basically look for two issues to help me decide: a women's right to abortion and the right to own firearms. It's that odd mix of conservative but social policies I like in a candidate. He seems more of a likely contender than a 3rd party and Ron Paul has much less of a chance than this guy. You can check out his main site. The only thing going against him is that he's not that pretty or charming and I feel the average American needs a somewhat pretty or charming president (Obama, Edwards). And no, I do not work for Richardson's campaign.
Boycott Sony
They just want another law to not enforce just so when someone has a problem with a minor playing a game with adult content the government can point the finger at the retailer that sold it.
It seems ridiculous to make the choice based on how a presidential contender feels about video games but when you are on the fence it just takes a little push. Barack Obama now has my vote.
Everyone knows that only a Christian Republican would do such a thing! (Well, except for Gore)
It's got to be hard for a woman Presidential candidate, especially a Democrat. I'm sure the message she was going for is: I care about kids and values and families, too! Not: Censorship is good. It is tough out-positioning Republicans, they've locked onto many key angles that, while mostly irrelevant to what Presidents do, secure them large blocks of voters. So Hilary is trying to maneuver likewise, but the Republicans stuck their flag in that "values" beachhead, whatever it means, long ago. As President I am sure Hilary would be focused on things like making sure kids got a good education and did not have to go to war, not video game content, but it is not worth wasting brain cells speculating on. The first woman president will be a Republican -- that will be an easier sell -- and I give a 35% probability that first woman Republican president will lead us into the final world war. Hilary comes into the election cycle in a terrible strategic position, and has about a 1% chance of becoming President. Edwards is probably the only of the top three leading Democrats who could get elected, though Barrack seems a leader who could rally Americans if in office. It is as if the Democrats have rose colored glasses on and cannot remember that most of us are prejudiced at some level on the basis of race and sex, at least subconsciously. Nothing Hilary says or does not say will change that, even if she meets with each of us personally and tells us each that one thing we personally want to hear. I am impressed by the force of her effort, however.
for all the things Democrats have going for them, they pull something like this.
"They" is Hillary Clinton. The other two Luddites in the Democratic party were Lieberman and Tipper Gore. The former is no longer a Democrat and only won his last election from massive support from Republicans, and the latter was only the wife of the vice president. On one of her visits to Iraq, people were cracking jokes on Dailykos, asking her if she went because an Iraqi child was playing GTA or if he was burning an American flag.
Alternative party vote here I come! (anyway) LOL
There is one age for cigarettes: 18. There is one age for alcohol: 21. It's not remotely that clear cut for video games. Imagine if cigarettes or alcohol were sold with age based ratings:
Early childhood - Budweiser for kids 3 and older.
Everyone - Camels for age 6 and older.
Teen - Miller for age 13 and up.
Mature - Marlboro's for 17 and up.
Adults Only - Captain Morgan for 18 and older.
This comparison also ignores the free speech issue with games and the health risks with alcohol and cigarettes, but mainly just cigarettes. If a 13 year old gets a hold of a case of Bud and drinks it over the course of a couple weeks, he's going to get buzzed and might do something stupid. If a 13 year old smokes half a dozen packs of cigarettes over the course of a month, he might become addicted and smoke for the rest of his life.
Neither Sony, Microsoft nor Nintendo will allow a game to be published in the US for their systems above a certain content rating (AO, I believe).
For example the video game Manhunt 2 got an AO. It couldn't be published until the offending material was removed.
That sure seems like censorship to me.
She had my vote before, but lost it now! I am an adult, but if this filtering comes into play it will end up like Germany, where Soldier Of Fortune has ROBOTS in place of people, SPARKS in place of blood and so on.... Sorry Mrs. Clinton, your husband was awesome, but you just lost my vote due to this stunt! Josh
Just because it works, Doesn't make it right. - JTM
she just lost SO many votes that she wouldnt be able to count.
Read radical news here
There are several problems with that.
The ESRB has routinely relied on the developers to make (presumably) intelligent decisions about what to rate games, since it's not as realistic for ESRB employees to complete the entirety of gameplay available in a game as opposed to the corresponding MPAA employee sitting through two hours of a movie. The gameplay footage that the developers provide is historically what the ESRB bases its decision on, although theres a chance the whole "Hot Coffee" incident has caused the ESRB to make a more thorough review of game assets. (But I doubt it.)
The ESRB does not have a clear set of guidelines on what will get content rated a certain way, and every game is treated as an individual case. (Read about the ESRB's handling of Manhunt 2 for a recent example.)
The A/O rating, at this time, is a rating that will keep a game out of stores for sure, and likely to prevent publishing altogether due to the console manufacturer's guidelines.
The only lobby group that I am aware of, the ECA, is positioned such that they feel the restriction of the sale of a game based on its content is unconstitutional.
So, if you have an AO game, you can't make it or get it into big box stores or get the console holders to sign off, but if you somehow got it into the wild, any 5 year old with $60 can get it unless you want a pack of lawyers chasing you around.
Typical conflict between "Oh Noez! Think of the Chitluns!" vs. "This is a free country, so pay up!"
To be fair, no one has made a quality, compelling AO game to test the legal waters - and most companies would rather take the more profitable M rating anyway.
OK, so these kids cannot buy these games/videos, so they will steal it. Great plan.
When I was a kid under Soviet oppression guess what was the coolest game to play on our Sinclair ZX Spectrums : Raid over Moscow.....
You prohibit something and kids will want it even more.
But hey, why do not we completely eliminate violent, sexual, racist, radical content from everything, and end up in a world where everything is full of pink singing butterflies.
Are you for the censorship of books? Do you think that Harry Potter needs to be tossed before a government review board to decide it is ok for children. If the review bored decides that its depictions of violence are too much, should a librarian or book seller be tossed fined or and thrown before a court?
When you can stand up to me and tell me that ALL media, including art, books, newspapers, music, etc need to go before a fucking government censorship board, than I will swallow that you despise free speech enough to actually want this. Until then, it is far more likely that video games are just the target of the month because Clinton reads books, but probably doesn't indulge in video games all that often. Oh yeah, and the first politician to suggest that we need to pass books through a fucking government censorship board would (rightly) have their balls (or ovaries) removed first by the public, and than again by the courts.
Especially video games produced outside the US and not called "America's Army" or such, since they might be promoting beliefs that the US aren't "god's army" with the mission to kill sub-human foreigners. The movie industry is of course not problematic at all, since Hollywood largely sticks to those "western values" in one violent movie after another ...
Please vote liberals or something if you value human rights / find the constant warmongering in poor countries inacceptable.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
"Hillary takes full credit for getting GTA:SA off the shelves."
Al Gore takes full credit for the internet.
And yet, Bill Clinton won't take any credit for all those girls he had sex with.
She seems a bit too full of herself if she thinks that she's got a lock on the Presidency. I can't imagine many NYers voting for her, after the way she carpetbagged her way into taking a Senate seat that should have gone to someone actually from NY, then proceeded to use that seat to beef up her presidency chest, doing nothing for the State that elected her to begin with. Have people forgotten that she bought a house in Chappaqua with only a month to go to satisfy the residency requirements for NY? Yeah, she really just thought that NY was a great place to live and all that.
(While I have many disgreements with Chuck Shumer, I do believe he at least has the interest of NYers at heart).
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
I am Big Mother, and i will crack down on rights. I will make sure your children view only things i deem appropriate for i know better because i raised a child and i am richer than you.
She's a pandering cunt. All of these morons are, including Mitt Romney. They all dont get it, and things like this are simple tests. They failed them. A simple American Freedom test... and they all fail in this regard.
NEXT.
Who will be running to uphold civil rights?
I am always struck by the parallels in the arguments of those who would censor or limit access to video games and the actions of the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency in 1954 with regard to comic books. The substantive issues all seem to be the same. And where are these violent delinquents? I for one, would rather them be planted in front of a game console than on the streets. The solution is still the same let media industries regulate themselves.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
This is the same Clinton that voted to authorise the executive branch to declare war against a country that had never threatened the United States? So I guess un-constitutional war is OK but naked people in video games is a no no.
You Americans need to get out of your comfortable chairs and stand for something again. It is sad to see the country that fought of the British empire due to high taxation behave in this manner.
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Except of course that there is no actual evidence that violence in either movies are games is harmful. In fact, the statistical evidence goes the opposite way. As movies have gotten increasingly violent, and games have become more realistically violent, rates of violent crimes have dropped--and dropped most sharply in the very demographic that is the primary consumers of such games.
That doesn't prove that games reduce violence (although the evidence is more consistent with that than with a harmful effect). But it does prove that any supposed violence-inducing effect of movies and games must be so small as to be swamped by other social and demographic factors. Or maybe parents are simply already doing a pretty good job of regulating what their own children play and watch--in which case why do we need the "nanny state" stepping in? And at the Federal level, no less?
I had clicked "reply" and was about to comment that no online post of this length on such a matter should fail to promote Ron Paul. I had not of course read the whole post at that time since this is Slashdot, but fortunately before I actually posted my witty reply I noticed that you promote Ron Paul at the end. Then I posted this reply anyway.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Clinton is trying to keep the Republicans from taking the "Family Values" high ground this election. This is a throw-away issue, one that a candidate can take a stand on without fear of ever having to deliver. She knows as well as anyone that every attempt to censor video game content has been shut down hard by the courts. She also has to know that establishing more federal bureaucracy in order to watch over video game content would never make it past Congress.
Hillary Clinton is just a politician attempting to get elected. I find it difficult to believe that there are actually single-issue voters whose single issue is video games, but based on what I've seen in this thread, it's obvious that such people exist. I'd prefer to focus on education, the economy, policing terrorists, and reasserting the rule of law in America, but it seems video game ratings are a more important issue.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Among American companies, EA is the giant in the industry, with net annual income of around $225 million. Compare to Disney's net annual income of just under $3 billion, and the amount of cash on available to grease politicians' palms isn't even in the same ballpark.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"There isn't much that I am aware of that make Europeans want to visit the US outside employment. "
...and bush will be gone fairly soon.
Ah, the voice of ignorance. Hasn't been here, but can't figure out why you'd want to come here.
I've been all over the world. The U.S. has more than it's fair share of ignorant people, overweight people, pushy people. And yes, Bush is doing his best to screw all of the good stuff up.
But there's opportunity, beauty, fun, and really great stuff in the United States. It's also significantly cheaper than Europe right now. I was over in London last summer, and it was tough to do more than work and eat. Dollar is too weak.
I couldn't agree more. Sadly, I don't think this is just a problem with Democrats.
The real point with this is that video games aren't a locked-in format like movies and music. All of this is just a push to crystallize the game industry into a nice, conglomerated cartel. In other words, welcome to a future where anything that doesn't have a government sanctioned stamp is treated like black market wares and the game ratings board is just another MPAA or RIAA.
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -Hillary Clinton, on the 2nd Amendment
Given how few of the campaign promises they even have the power to deliver, much less the ones they even remember after getting elected, why worry? It'll just be another forgotten promise thrown out there for the gullible folks who believe the candidates. To truly figure out what a president/senator/representative nominee will do, just look at their voting record and the campaign contributors list. They don't give a crap about their promises or morality.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Sure it's cliche now, but it's the ONLY weapon used to kill people that asshats have managed to somehow convince hoards of mindless zombies "have a life of their own and are solely responsible for these deaths." Personification is simply inappropriate here and only used to fulfill a political agenda.
Shit, can you imagine if someone said "bad drivers and lots of knives killing people"? Yeah, I hate when those knives just jump up and cut your throat out...
Why does she do this? Let parent deal with their own kids! what i they like their kids playing those games!
Scotty thats not funny! Beam down my clothes RIGHT NOW!-Capt. Kirk
What this clearly means, since politicians cannot tell the truth, is that Hilary Clinton is the only democrat who will actually refrain from passing such legislation.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Riiiight. That's exactly what the video game industry needs... a corrupt organization that pushes DRM against its own interests, and also acts as a censorship board. That would be really fucking wonderful for videogames.
If they get such a lobby group, I guess we can look forward to the videogame industry destroying itself within the next decade.
... and then they built the supercollider.
And I am fairly sure that Grand Theft Autos happen no more often that once every three months per state.
Wrong. Auto theft statistics as FBI's Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report shows, more than 1 million vehicles are stolen each year. Using 1 million, if the same number are stolen in each state that's 20,000 per state, that's more than 1000 a month. The odds of a vehicle being stolen were 1 in 190.
FalconShould there be a Law?
That anyone's surprised by this.
Even Joe Lieberman is on the pro game censorship bandwagon, which, I'm sure combined with Al "My Wife Started the PMRC" Gore's association, to form a deadly combination that resulted in, you know, that *other* guy getting the presidency.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
I don't care if it's federal or state legislation that gets carried in, as long as eventually everybody has that law.
We don't need more laws, we need less.
FalconShould there be a Law?
He is the closest to being a Libertarian candidate.
Ron Paul did run as a Libertarian. In 1988 he ran for president on the LP ticket.
FalconShould there be a Law?
So given the choice between voting for a loss in freedom of liberty you will vote for a loss in freedom of liberty?
Doesn't sound like much of a choice. I'd vote third-party.
Newsreporter: And so with two weeks left in the campaign, the question on everyone's mind is, who will be the president of Earth? Jack Johnson or bitter rival John Jackson. Two terrific candidates, Morbo?
Morbo: All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo.
for the record; I didn't like Gore either. If he had a problem with our nation's energy policy and carbon footprint, then he had 8 years to do something about it as VP, and he didn't do jack.
I didn't like Gore either but I thought Bush would be worse. I had planned on voting for Harry Brown, on the LP ticket. But as the election got closer it looked real close so on election day I chose what I thought was the lesser of 2 bads.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's FOR THE CHILDREN! That makes it okay! And after all, who knows what's best for the children than the government?
The "protect the children" schtick coming from a candidate who believes that killing children while still in the womb is okay somehow doesn't wash.
Democrats _love_ Hollywood, the RIAA, MPAA, DMCA and anything that gives media more money and control. Who's the little cheapskate when it comes to greasing politician's palms?
I don't recall for sure but wasn't the Republicans in control of congress when the DMCA was passed? Republican Rep Howard Coble introduced the DMCA in the House.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. A store selling 18+ games to twelve-year-olds should be punished.
BS! It's parents jobs to be parents, not stores and not government. If you want to do what you're proposing then exist it to books. I find the Bible to be offensive; it's filled with incest, rape, murder, and even genocide, so it should be illegal to sell to minors too.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The last thing this country needs is another Cliton in the white house.
That is not a typo. There is only one N in Cliton.
We don't have to worry about that happening though. President Obama will win.
I wasnt suggesting that such a group should do all the bad things the MPAA does, just that the video game industry needs a group that can make as much noise in Washington DC on its behalf as the MPAA does on behalf of the movie studios and the RIAA does on behalf of the record companies.
As for DRM, look at the DRM on many PC titles (e.g. Securom and Starforce) and what it does to your system. (in fact the vendor of one DRM system used a smear campaign against a studio who released a title with no DRM at all IIRC)
Requiring a national ID (something all countries around the world except for the US have) as an age verification would be enough.
Oh but it is, the law of the land in the USA is the Constitution of the USA and it gives no such power to the government. Bend the Constitution a little bit, then someone else does, then ad nauseam, 'til eventually the Constitution means nothing.
FalconShould there be a Law?
a president? It's ridiculous to even suggest that principality an morality of children should be governed.
Oh, when Hillary said "It takes a village."
FalconShould there be a Law?
He certainly did that. In 2000 instead of voting for the person I wanted elected president I specifically voted against Bush. After that I decided I wasn't going to waste my vote again. At least people will know there's at least one person who still believes in freedom and liberty.
FalconShould there be a Law?
is that it's one-size-fits-all philosophy has no way to deal with issues that require government action: health care costs, global warming, pollution, etc.
The Libertarian position isn't one size fits all, it's position is to allow everyone to try their own thing. In the US there's 50 states and the LP would allow each state to do it's own experiments, instead of your one size fits all the feds would have. A state can experiment to find out what works and what doesn't. Then other states can try things the way another state finds that works, and can try something different for those that don't work.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You hit it right on the head. Hillary is mercenary!
FalconShould there be a Law?
I disagree with her on this as much as I did "It Takes a Village. Unless and until science can proof these games harm children there should be NO LAW about them.
FalconShould there be a Law?
When the Virginia Tech shootings happened video games were blamed.
/. know why ;-0
The perpetrator never played any but was obsessed with a violent Korean film.
This film was shown recently and described as a masterpiece and not as dangerous to be viewed by anyone with emotional problems.
We at
The Federal Government should not be used in the role of a nanny.
People: Raise your own children, or hire a nanny that you trust.
I needed MORE evidence that Hillary Clinton was a giant douche. This information fills the gap nicely.
Kucinich FTW!!!
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Ideologically, I would be prone to claim free speech, and leave it at that. However, there's a really large and increasing amount of studies that indicate that yes, violence in video games begets violence in real life. This issue needs to be studied more.
IF it does turn out that violence in the arts causes violence in real life, then doesn't it seem as reasonable to regulate that content, just as much as one now has to regulate carbon emissions, where we didn't think we needed to before? Isn't pretending that violence in the arts doesn't cause violence in people the same as pretending that driving an SUV doesn't have impact on the environment? If we can't live in the 1940s forever because of our understanding of the real impact of cars, then, can we just as well live in the 1980s by continued ignorance of the real impact of video games?
I mean, come on, seriously, if your kid downloaded a video game version of DW Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" (which features a Klan ride), then, wouldn't playing that make the idea of riding in the Klan somehow more acceptable, because they have done it?
This is my sig.
Funny, I thought those stickers (thanks Tipper Gore - lol) were already addressing that.
Gotta love how our government (doesn't) works
Thank you for owning to to being wrong on that one. Not many republicans are smart enough or even willing to admit responsibility for fucking up America by voting republican. Just don't do it again and all will be forgiven.
I knew Bush was a loser from the start when his fuzzy math statement came out. Clearly he was, and still is a dimwit. His father was also a liar, big time loser, and did nothing good for the country.
Neither republicans or democrats are good for America and freedom anymore. Unfortunately we don't have any good choices this time around. Quoting wisdom: "Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil".
The best contest for next election will be a choice between Obama and Ron Paul. I believe either one would uphold the principals of democracy and freedom, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. All other candidates will be CRAB revisited: witch hunts, spanish inquisition, no bid contracts to the good 'ol boy club, and continuation of dark ages mentality, ... and it goes downhill from there
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
More from Clinton:
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Once again we have an article focusing on the wrong problem - and the whole of /. following.
I have no problem with wanting to regulate games and other entertainment. It seems quite likely to me that they influence our behaviour, but that is just my opinion and not scientifically established yet. And it is not the most important problem here - it is the fact that the legislators have next to no knowledge about these things and prefer to ignore the reality and live in a dream world where 'ideals' and 'religions' are more important then facts.
Whether violent games are damaging or not is one thing - what you do (or indeed can do) about it is quite another. And passing laws about age limits is mostly just hand waving and possibly damaging, because not only will those laws be ignored, but it also becomes 'cool' to get the latest banned game. If we want to do something about the attraction violence and violent games holds, we should focus on educating people about things, and influencing the cultural attitudes and social problems that lead to people preferring violence.
The US is a vast cultural wasteland.
Too big, too little culture.
In Europe you can absorb culture by vast amounts in less time.
Your tourist euros go further away in Europe that in the US, in spite of the current exchange rate.
Add to that the despicable treatment of visitors to the US on arrival (i.e. like suspected criminals) plus the remote possibility to be whisked away to Guantanamo or worst, and frankly the explanation to the imbalance begins to stare you in the face.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... better you hire a psychiatrist pronto, although I don't know if sociopathy is treatable.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Real life is not every minutiae of what every human is experiencing.
Real life is what most people can reasonably expect to do and see during the normal passing of their lives.
Randomly robbing cars and beating people is an anomaly, so much so that people doing it are considered pariahs and incarcerated if caught.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It normally uses chains of sausages.
Don't know why.
Yeah, it is a clever dog. It can tie itself to any lamp post.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Some games may be inappropriate for minors and some aren't.
And in any case parents can always allow their children access to items rated not suitable for minors.
This kind of legislation is not illiberal, it is just common sense. Minors are not allowed to do lots of stuff for the simple fact that they are not ready to do it. Choosing suitable games is one of those things they are not ready to do.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Chose another example.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Where did we hear that before?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Her job is to listen to people and articulate their needs (otherwise she would not get the job) but somehow your anecdotal evidence is better, than the one presented by her.
Sorry, but you need to do better.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... that the people that voted twice for her will, for magical reasons beyond my comprehension, not vote for her now?
Maybe, but your reasoning is pathetic in view of the electoral results she got.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... then you simply are not paying attention.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.