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.
Who's yo daddy now? Hillary Clinton, that's who.
Now parent can focus on what's most important to them... consuming propaganda.
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!
Didn't you pay attention to the last election? Those things don't matter. What matters is "family values."
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
Socializing healthcare does not make you a socialist. Putting healthcare in line with Police, Military, Fire Departments will not make a socialized State. (but hey, lets privatize those!!!). You can still have a large and profitable private sector along side - think of it as the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Think about that next time one of your family members needs a liver transplant and is told by the Insurance Company that its too 'experimental' and decline to pay, just cos their profits are down for the quarter and someone has a monthly target to meet.
/rant. wget Coffee.
And before someone goes into a rant about the cost, don't you think spending money on fixing your broken and wounded is better than spending billions on killing others?
I've seen people around here saying "oh but its too hard for parents to monitor games 'cos they'd have to play them".. well there are plenty of review sites (and room for new websites that rates games suitability for kids) that comment in more detail about what's in the game than the ESRB rating.
You know getting into what you are doing with your freedom in the privacy of your own home is still violating your freedom and privacy, whether or not is it badmouthing the president's policies or playing video games. Wanting to do it for one proclaimed reason or another does not change what it is. A camoflaged tank is still a tank.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Because the laws that exist (namely the constitution) don't permit such restrictions? Also because these politicians probably want any rating higher than E10 to mean it can't be sold to anyone, including adults?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
_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"
Why on earth should all kids be allowed to go and buy GTA IV, Soldier of Fortune or any similar game?
Why not if the parents approve?
If your legal guardian feels that you are old enough and responsible to enjoy said entertainment then it should be their right. It should also be their right to prevent their child from playing such things if they so desire by not giving the money to their kids in the first place and/or monitoring their internet activities.
If you bring up tobacco and alcohol, those things are of course dangerous and have been scientifically proven to cause harm. That said, once you are 18 then I believe you should be able to put whatever into your body you feel like, but a parent giving his kids cigarettes is about as negligent as giving them some mercury or cyanide to play with.
Video games and even content of pornographic nature has never been conclusively shown to cause physical or mental harm to the average human. Yes, there are cases where people play a video game and flip out (like kids jumping out of windows because they thought they could fly like in Pokemon), but the same thing could be said about a psycho who reads the Bible or Koran and kills someone because he claims god told him to do it.
Again, if a parent feels their child can handle it or just don't care, they'll buy it for them anyways. Its kind of just stupid to have more laws on an issue that in reality is a moot point.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
The point is that they want to criminalize either:
1) The **creation** of video games that are not appropriate for children
2) The selling of adult video games to minors
The problem with #1 is that it is blatant censorship. The problem with #2 is that any video game that is not appropriate for children will be immediately pulled from store shelves. No retailer will want to run the risk of accidentally running afowl of the law. Walmart especially will pull the things on "moral grounds." So in effect, it *will* be censorship, albiet indirectly.
R-rated movies are not criminalized. Children can't get into them without an adult, but you don't see people being hauled off to jail because some child slipped through the cracks. It's the parents' job to police this stuff. We don't need the government to say, "Parents, you can't do your job so we'll do it for you." And parents who say this is "good for them" because it "make parenting easier" shouldn't have kids in the first place. They are trying to say they don't want all of the responsibility of parenting. If they can't handle it they shouldn't have had kids. Not only that, but to think that you'll be able to 100% shield your kids from 'the real world' is a pipe dream. Even if you are able to effectively shield your kids in such a way, once they leave the nest they will be ill-prepared to deal with the world at large. (it should be noted that this causes some kids to 'go crazy' as in 'party hard' and 'sex it up' which is exactly what over-protective parents are trying to prevent in the first place. i.e. their over zealous efforts can be counter-productive)
Criminalizing the sale of violent video games to minors won't stop children from getting their hands on them anymore than it would stop children from sneaking into R-rated movies. If all other avenues of distribution are 'sealed up,' they will just play the video game (or see the movie) at their friends' house down the street (the friend whose parents bought the game or movie for them because they either don't care or don't care enough to figure out what is age-appropriate).
I like Kucinich, but know he is terribly unlikely to win the primaries let alone the general election.
So? Why do you have to vote for a winner? If people stopped worrying about being on the winning team and instead voted for someone they believed in, we'd probably end up with a better government.That makes some sense - just like rating movies.
Ok, But that's what we have NOW. We have a voluntary ratings system that the industry standardizes on. Same as the movie industry.
The catch is they're trying to make it illegal to sell these games to minors, which, well, yeah. That's a bit beyond what they currently have going in the film industry. Yes, if you're 14 you'll been shooed out if you try to see a R rated movie, and most rental stores will stop you from renting "Faces of Death". But it's not outright illegal. And most retailers and rental stores will shoo you away if you're not old enough to buy a M rated game. But again, not illegal if the occasional kid slips through.
Proponents of "video game regulation" aren't really interested in the market, or even protecting kids. They know that 99% of people over the age of 30 think "Pong", "Pac-man", and "Space Invaders" when they think video games, and are exploiting them wanting to make sure the industry stays that way. It's a cheap political ploy, nothing more.
Removing accidents and homicides is actually a bad idea and distorts the health care picture.
Take the following scenario, you are in a car accident, or been shot. Would you want to be shot or in a car accident in say Mexico, or say Norway? This is important because the quality of emergency care you get is a result of the quality of health care. So if more people die in America due to accidents or gun shots then you have two reasons; bad drivers and lots of guns killing people, and health care that is not capable of dealing with those situations.
What you are doing by removing accidents and homicides is being selective in your statistics and focusing on those people that don't do dangerous sports, or do anything that might bring harm on them. Not a good idea...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Actually it is most appropriate. When you take something like accidents, Whether it be from cars the poor can actually afford and drive to recreational boats and watercraft that are more prevalent in one country compared to another, you easily see that the problem isn't the health care but the types of injuries. If the UK, Canada, Japan and so on had as many of the same types of injurt deaths, their numbers would be different too.
The entire point of stats aren't to give credit to your cause. While that is the popular thing to use them for, it is to see where the problems are or the trends. Lets put it this way, If more people are dieing from gunshot wounds in one country where guns are legal for everyone to own then in another country where only government officials, law enforcement or military people can have, the problem isn't the medical treatment, it is the presence of guns. When you do something like a comparison of countries, you have to look for places where things are severely different and find a way to normalize them. Poor people in the UK don't have cars, so normalizing the effect of motor vehicle accident makes sense. Average citizens in the UK and Japan don't carry guns, some can in the US, normalizing for this needs to happen.
So yes, it is entirely appropriate to make a fair comparison. Even when it doesn't agree with your world view.
On the contrary, you should never STOP debating it and you should strie to make sure the politicians know that whichever of them does it more will be losin votes. Make them compete about who will do it the least.
"No one in the US goes without treatment. Hell, even illegal aliens get treated. It may bankrupt you, but if you are in need of treatment in the US, you will get treated."
You must have been watching FOX news again, because you are full of shit. People are routinely refused treatment or medication because they cannot pay for it. I guess you are referring to the required MINIMUM treatment at certain emergency rooms. Such treatment options suck because A: If your symptoms do not meet the definition of immediately life threating or subject to causing severe permanent disability you will be refused treatment. B: The law requires a MINIMAL level of treatment only mostly focused on stabilization. C: They are horrendously expensive to us all since only the worst cases go through them, cases that could have been managed at much lower cost in a normal clinical setting. Quit spreading lies misinformation.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
Go ahead people mod me down or ignore me yet again because I take an unpopular stand. I can take it because while I do care about how the spread of ignorance, misinformation or plain old FUD screws up our world, I don't care what idiots think about me personally.