Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Government Entertainment Politics

Clinton To Take On Rockstar 309

Posted by Zonk
from the who-doesn't-like-hotbutton-issues? dept.
Hillary Clinton, protector of the innocent, has vowed to see an FTC investigation launched against Rockstar because of the 'Hot Coffee' sex mod (already under investigation by the ESRB). From the Gamespot article: "...following recent reports revealing that the video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas has graphic pornographic content which may be unlocked by following instructions on the Internet, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will hold a press conference to discuss legislative solutions to keep inappropriate video game content out of the hands of young people."
ARGH! Okay...seriously...it's already rated M. It's out of the hands of children. If Rockstar actually left the content in that wasn't the smartest thing they've ever done, but it's not like they killed a puppy.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Clinton To Take On Rockstar

Comments Filter:
  • meanwhile (Score:5, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok (451306) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:05AM (#13062571)
    meanwhile, Bill works feverishly to open the sex game in GTA before Hillary puts a stop to it altogether.
  • I like hillary (Score:2, Informative)

    by BoomerSooner (308737)
    However this is pure stupidity. The game has to have a downloaded patch to get it to work on a modded XBox. This is unlikely to fall in the hands of the average 7 year old by accident.
    • I didn't know the Hot Coffee mod was available for the X-Box, so far all the coverage I've seen has been about the PC version.
      • As I understand it, it's just a change in some data in the saved-game file, so it should work semi-easily on any platform where you can twiddle the memory card.
        • Re:I like hillary (Score:2, Informative)

          by PhilHibbs (4537)
          No, it doesn't affect the game save, it modifies the game itself (at least, the PC version that I downloaded) and affects all new and saved games.
    • Re:I like hillary (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stinerman (812158) <nathan DOT stine AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:52AM (#13063044) Homepage
      She's already starting her run to the center for her presidential bid in 2008. Hopefully most people will see right through this.

      She represents the worst of the Democrats in that she doesn't have any positions that won't change based on tomorrow's opinion poll. Not only that, she repesents the "government knows better than you" wing as well.
      • Re:I like hillary (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2005 @10:11AM (#13063206)
        the "government knows better than you" wing as well.

        Which wing was that, the "both sides of the line" wing? Face it, when one party wants the government to intrude into our daily lives to make sure we're all safe and happy from ourselves, and the other party wants the government to intrude into our daily lives to make sure we're all safe and happy from terrorists, we're all boned.

        When the Libertarian Party's alternative quits being "the government knows nothing", I'll vote for them.
      • She represents the worst of the Democrats in that she doesn't have any positions that won't change based on tomorrow's opinion poll. Not only that, she repesents the "government knows better than you" wing as well.

        Aren't these two points of view exclusive? If the government knows better than you, they should not care what polls say. Instead, they will do what is "right" in their eyes and the public opinion be damned. I understand your description and it does seem to describe Hillary accurately enough, but

        • Re:I like hillary (Score:3, Insightful)

          by eyeye (653962)
          They care what the polls say until they are elected..
        • I understand fully. They are not mutually exclusive.

          If 51% of people think GTA should be banned, then that is the position of such Democrats. Then, since she knows better than you (assuming you are one of the 49% that don't think GTA should be banned), she will proceed to ban it.

          The way you put it was about as elegant as I did in the previous post, so hopefully between our 3 posts, people are getting the point.
      • Re:I like hillary (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Cornflake917 (515940)
        Not only that, she repesents the "government knows better than you" wing as well.

        I would hope that the government is more informed and intelligent than than I am. If not, we are in bad shape.

        Hence, we are in bad shape.
      • Re:I like hillary (Score:2, Insightful)

        by FooHentai (624583)
        Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a good thing that a politician would listen to the view of the people (opinions, polls) and adjust their position accordingly.

        Much better than someone who pushes through an agenda irrespective of public opinion.
        • Re:I like hillary (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jebell (567579) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @12:41PM (#13064828) Journal
          What if the will of the majority tramples the rights of the minority? It wasn't that long ago that politicians in the American South fought to keep blacks and whites from using the same public facilities. This was what the majority of their white constituents wanted but that doesn't make it right.
      • She represents the worst of the Democrats in that she doesn't have any positions that won't change based on tomorrow's opinion poll.

        You mean until elected? Her entire Senate career is grooming and posturing. After winning a presidential election it's somewhat likely we return to the '92-3 agenda. The agenda that prompted voters to put the Republicans in charge of the House for the first time in what, forty something years? Supposedly she was angry over Bill getting the voters message and moving the agen
        • No one really knows.

          I just find it funny that the Republican strategy of campaigning to their base has worked very well and the Democrats haven't picked up on that.
    • Re:I like hillary (Score:5, Insightful)

      by macdaddy357 (582412) <macdaddy357@hotmail.com> on Thursday July 14, 2005 @10:01AM (#13063122)
      I wonder if the Junior Senator from New York and everyone else having a cow realize how much free press they are giving this game? People who had never considered buying it before will be curious now, and it will fly off the shelves! Rockstar couldn't have bought this kind of publicity.
    • I take it you don't know many 7 year olds.
  • by enrico_suave (179651) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:06AM (#13062586) Homepage
    "... Hillary Rodham Clinton will hold a press conference to discuss legislative solutions to keep inappropriate video game content out of the hands of young people."

    Can you legislate good parenting?

    e.
    • by 88NoSoup4U88 (721233) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:12AM (#13062635)
      Legislate, nah :

      Keeping parents partly accountable for misdeeds their kids might do : Yes.

      I think Hillary shouldn't be focusing on this game (it's not even -allowed- to be sold to minors : So wtf is the problem), but more on her husband, who seems to be slipping his dick in stranger's mouths...

      • "So wtf is the problem), but more on her husband, who seems to be slipping his dick in stranger's mouths..."

        The way this is worded, it is like you are complaining about something that happened to you at a campaign rally years back.

    • by alvinrod (889928) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:16AM (#13062677)
      Not really, but for some reason a lot of politicians think that they can, or at least substitue legislation for the necessity of parenting.

      Rather than parents taking an active interest in the gaming, television, and online habits of their children, politicians would rather pass laws regulating the flow of information and sale of materials that they feel are harmful to a child. Never mind the fact that these viewpoints are completely subjective.

      Maybe I might feel it necessary for any children I might have to play GTA and experience violent behavior. Maybe I might want them to be able to view pornographic scenes in movies or video games. Who the hell do they think they are to act so self-rightous and decide what is and what is not good for the rest of the world? Essentially what we end up with is a form of censorship, someone else deciding what's appropriate for me to view. I don't mind a review board that posts recomendations and warns me of the content in a product (I don't want to pop in a cartoon and have it turn out to be horse porn or brutal executions), but I want to have the freedom to decide for myself or my children what is appropriate.

      It falls right into line with the American Way though. Why do if yourself when you can get someone else to do it for you and save you the work? These politicians can garner votes by promoting their activities as good for the American public and can go home and sleep at night convincing themselves they've somehow done some good in the world.

      • by dusik (239139)
        >> "...politicians would rather pass laws regulating the flow of information and sale of materials that they feel are harmful to a child."

        I wonder how many of them actually care about the children. I think politicians will do just about anything to enhance their public opinion.
      • Actually, in a twisted way, she is responding to her constituency. Parents these days will tell you how society has let them down, the schools failed them, didn't teach their children, and all the other ways that everyone failed to parent their children for them.

        (irony)Someone has to take a stand and bring in the villiage to provide parenting for these children and the parents are sending a message to their representatives that they won't stand for society's failure at this.(/irony)

        BTW - to head off any

      • by dpilot (134227) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @10:38AM (#13063426) Homepage Journal
        Not that I approve of "substitute legislation for the necessity of parenting," but if we've substituted day-care and latchkeys for parents, a lot of the damage to parenting has already been done.

        Back in the 50's we had the classic "Leave it to Beaver" parenting model, where Dad went to work, and Mom stayed home with the kids. Perhaps Mom was swilling the liquor and playing poker with her friends, but mine wasn't, and AFAIK, the other moms in the neighborhood weren't. We had active and involved moms who enforced values, (to put it in current-speak) kissed skinned knees, and got us back up on our bikes, etc.

        Fast-forward to today, where the norm is either two incomes, or a single working income. Young kids are in day-care - presumably the low-cost provider, and older kids lock the doors after getting home from school. If parents get home at 5:00 and put the kids to bed at 9:00, that's 4 hours, 5 if you include an hour in the morning. You can "teach" all you want during that 4-5 hours, but that's dwarfed by the "imprint time" with the sitter for small kids and classmates/media for larger kids. But then again, two wrongs don't make a right. Further legislation doesn't correct the problem of busy parents, it only tries to hide it.

        Not that I think 2 working parents is always bad. Some families can handle it. I just don't think it's good as the "standard model" for our society. But from the Government's point of view, it's great! Put Mom to work and you also partially finance a day-care worker, collecting taxes from both. You also find less cooking-from-scratch and more prepared foods, with attendant higher corporate profits (taxes, again) and job creation rates.
      • by slughead (592713) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @10:47AM (#13063521) Homepage Journal
        Not really, but for some reason a lot of politicians think that they can, or at least substitue legislation for the necessity of parenting.

        I find it funny that whenever republicans do this, everyone starts talking about "THE RADICAL RIGHT," but when democrats lead the way, it's all about "the government" or "politicians" in general.

        It works the same way with gun control: when republicans do it, it's "big government," when democrats do it, it's "the liberal's" fault.

        It's so confusing, that's why I can't vote [lp.org] for either of those two parties.
        • I find it funny that whenever republicans do this, everyone starts talking about "THE RADICAL RIGHT," but when democrats lead the way, it's all about "the government" or "politicians" in general.

          It works the same way with gun control: when republicans do it, it's "big government," when democrats do it, it's "the liberal's" fault.

          What's the difference in this case? They're all assholes, right? ;)

          Seriously, though...the radical right and left both share a similar desire -- to control us. From a s

    • Can you legislate good parenting?

      Hard to say. Most politicians seem to think it is worth spending time talking about it, for no other apparent reason than to have lobbyist fill their coffers trying to 'influence' the decisions - be that yes, no, or not make one.
  • by Sammich (623527) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:09AM (#13062608)
    We are the from the Government...we're here to help
  • Makes sense (not!) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clausiam (609879) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:11AM (#13062631)
    ...keep inappropriate content out of the hands of young people...

    Let's see:

    * Killing pedestrians by running them over: Appropriate for children.
    * Shooting people in the head: No problem, kids are ok with that
    * Toasting cops with flamethrowers: Hey, that's cool, go on my little angel dear.
    * Nudity and pornographical images: What is this, I'll call my congress[wo]man immediately. They need to stop this filth from getting to innocent kids.

    Somebody really need to get their priorities right! Not to mention it already has an M-rating as someone already mentioned in another post.

    • This is America! Violence is good, wholesome, and can even be on local public channels!

      Showing a nipple? Put that woman in jail!!!

      Yep... ass backwards.

      Maybe this is a good thing, though. If stuff like this keeps coming up, maybe the nation will see that we are backwards compared with the rest of the world??
    • GTA is rated M, or 17+. It says so right on the box [gametab.com]. This is NOT a game for kids.

      Believe it or not, there are many parents out there who don't allow their kids to watch movies or play games because they have either too much violence or too much sex. They don't want to expose their kids to what in their view is not a good influence. They use the ratings on movies and video games, and often check out the material themselves.

      They know that children need guidence and that the kids may not understand many
      • So the "This is America, violence is OK but sex is not" statement simply isn't true when it comes to most parents. It's used by politicians who are trying to appeal to a specific demographic.

        I disagree. True, there are still a lot of commonsense parents luckily, but as a "trend" or "national average" the US is much more body-phobic and violence-accepting than European nations (I've lived 28 years in Europe and 10 in the US).

        Couple of examples:

        • The amount of violence accepted in common TV shows vs. t
    • "Somebody really need to get their priorities right!"

      To be fair, there is a good deal more teen pregnancy going on than teen toasting-cops-with flamethrowersancy...
      • This just makes the case for the game even further.

        If empirical, real life evidence shows that flooding popular culture with violence reduces crime rate while tabooing nudity and sex increases teen pregnancy then that only stands to reason that we should remove these silly restrictions.
        • "This just makes the case for the game even further."

          I was just trying to explain why some peeps get so dip-shitted about sexual content in games/TV. They see kids having sex, they see that they didn't teach their kids that, they don't remember being being a kid so they assume it must be sexual content bombardment. (Actually, it probably has to do with the 'clean wholesome 50s era' not having much in terms of teen pregnancy or stds. Since the big difference is T&A on TV, I doubt much more thought h
      • by clausiam (609879)
        To be fair, there is a good deal more teen pregnancy going on than teen toasting-cops-with flamethrowersancy...

        Because teens will be teens and this whole push to preach abstinence instead of safe sex will never work. The religious right driven push to make teen/pre-marital sex a sin and punish parents who try to make their kids safe (the lawsuit against the mother who provided condoms for her son) is backfiring greatly and will lead to many more teen pregnancies and STDs.

        Talk to your kids, make them be

    • by mooingyak (720677) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @11:17AM (#13063749)
      I happen to agree that this nation has it priorities a little screwed up.

      But consider that the negative consequences of violent acts tend to be fairly obvious, while the negative consequences of sexual acts are a good deal less so, especially since there's no guarantee that any particular time will have a negative consequence.

      So some people are not that worried about the violence their kids are exposed too. They expect it to be clear what the problems with violence are. But the same people get nervous about exposing their kids to sexual content, as the problems are less clear.

      I think we (Americans) freak out way too much about nudity, though I feel it's a bit more justified in the case of pornagraphic material.
  • At least TFA actually acknowledges that the game is rated 17+.

    While the game is rated M, and therefore not readily sold to those below the age of 17, the mod is easily available online.

    Thank you TFA... I will go back to blaming parents again.

  • Everyone is getting upset about some non-graphic sex scenes in a video game where you walk around beating and killing people?
  • by Fr05t (69968)
    I'm Canadian and not really educated in what government bodies handle what, but the FTC on video games? I didn't realize that was something inside their scope.

    As I said before it is a 17+ game. I think the real problem and news head line is "Parents allow 10 year old kids to play games clearly marked 17+" or "EB sells age 17+ games to preteens".

    Oh well at least Rockstars PR move which tossed out the "H" word has all the uninformed news sources spewing more favorable B.S.

    Headlines from google news:
    "Hacker
  • Rockstar has claimed that the minigames were *not* in the game at all, but that the modification added them, given that the modification is rather large that might be true, ie. its not just a 'enable_porn_minigame = 1' thing. Not sure if that claim is actually true, but if it is that surly blasts the whole thing away. I mean should we outlaw the internet explorer and google just because I can 'unlock' porn with it by entering that word into the search-inputbox?

    I am all for regulating video games and making
    • Rockstar's claim in PR talk. On my Xbox version a simple byte flag change in my saved game file unlocked that minigame, no files added/removed from the game. It's been called the censor flag. The Xbox version also has clothes on the players in the minigame, but I've heard the PC version they are nude.

      The larger PC mods simply add more features hacks to make the mod easier to pull off and more interesting. And they contain the changed file, not instructions on what bytes to change in the files to achi
  • by jon787 (512497) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:22AM (#13062737) Homepage Journal
    Not investigating Maxis over The Sims Nude Patch [google.com]

    INCONCEIVABLE!
  • Thanks Hillary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by squiggleslash (241428) * on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:24AM (#13062765) Homepage Journal
    ...some of us are tired of characterizations of us liberals as meddlers in issues that should be a matter of personal responsibility. You seem to be doing all you can to persuade everyone otherwise.

    If a parent allows a child to play a game named "Grand Theft Auto" (a major crime), with a clearly visible rating that clearly identifies it as being for adults, then it's hard to see how this is any fault of the publisher or anyone else but the parent concerned.

    It's also hard to see the obsession with preventing children from seeing anything "sexual" while, apparently, being unconcerned about children coming across something violent. Here's a major clue for you, speaking as someone who was a child for 12 years of my life, and a teenager for about eight: children think stuff to do with sex is icky anyway. As for teenagers, on the other hand, they'll find something sexual in a church newsletter. Hidden scenes in stupid video games aren't going to make a major difference.

    A second issue you may not realise is that sex is, fundamentally, neutral. It can be used for good and for bad. It is not inherently evil and to be used only under extreme circumstances, such as when bad things threaten you. In fact, it's actually, usually, a beautiful thing. This is not true of violence. So why people like yourself give a stuff about the former but not the latter will... god, am I really pointing this out? I must be the 912,291th person on Slashdot *alone* to have pointed out this rather obvious fact.

    Seriously. I appreciate that you, Senator, as someone born at the tender age of 21, probably do not realise any of this and so have some screwed up views on the subject. They may or may not be distantly connected with people close to you. For all I know, a night in bed with Bill is worse than five rounds with Muhammed Ali. Nevertheless, please do us all a favour and shut the f--- up. You do not know what you're talking about. You are meddling in a way that gives those of us that would otherwise support you a bad name. If this is part of your presidential ambitions, I think I speak for most of the liberals on Slashdot when I say: Kerry '08.

    • Re:Thanks Hillary (Score:5, Informative)

      by metamatic (202216) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:41AM (#13062920) Homepage Journal
      In case you aren't aware, Hillary Clinton is planning a Presidential run. She has been going after various right-wing concerns in an attempt to make herself look more palatable to what the Democrats perceive as the mainstream of US politics.

      She has been talking about abortion as a "sad, tragic choice" that should happen "only in very rare circumstances", supporting the war in Iraq, talking about how she's adamantly against illegal immigration, and so on. It's all rather blatant. I'll be curious to see if it works.
      • I think she's doing all that to draw fire from whoever they field as the real candidate. I mean c'mon, really. If the Democrats put her up as their candidate in '08, I'm starting a write-in campaign for J. Danforth Quayle!
      • In case you aren't aware, Hillary Clinton is planning a Presidential run.

        I did actually mention that ;)

        She has been talking about abortion as a "sad, tragic choice" that should happen "only in very rare circumstances"

        In my experience, that's what most people agree with, and I'm one of them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is the Senator's actual position. Support for the right has never implied support for the act. It's a falacy promoted by the media and extreme right that anyone who's pro

        • sadly a majority of americans disagree with you. and even though she's doing this i'm sure right wing radio is saying the "sex thing" in "that video game" is all the work of liberals.

          republican pennsylvania senator rick santorum blamed all the liberals in boston for the ***worldwide*** church abuse scandals. blaming liberals for something dumb in a video game is downright sane compared to that one.
        • Re:Thanks Hillary (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Epi-man (59145)
          Nonetheless, if the GTA "outrage" is bogus, then she's fundamentally being dishonest,


          Interesting, I don't believe I have ever seen Hillary as being fundamentally honest. Have you watched and listened to her over the past 13 years?
    • The scary thing is that the conservatives are probably going to be more outraged that a tit was exposed than government becoming more involved in "parenting". Hillary likely saw this as an opportunity to lead a bipartisan attack on this travesty of home grown American values ...
    • You do of course realize this has nothing to do with children at all. It is just various politicians seeing this as something to capitalize on.

      Hillary is clearly using this simply as a means to get into a public debate about an "issue" that involves something important, like "kids". Never you mind that the actual substance of the issue is completely and fundamentally flawed, which you did a superb job of expounding upon.

      That is my problem with the democratic party right now, they try too HARD by trying
    • Sooner another four years of that psuedoRepublican Bill Clinton than Kerry. Kerry broke only one campaign promise: that he would fight for us if there were apparent voting problems. He conceded long before there was time to figure out whether there were problems. For that, he'll burn in hell with Shrub and Cheney forever.

      Kerry can suck my ass.

      Yeah, I know this is offtopic. And I agree with the actual point of the parent post.

    • some of us are tired of characterizations of us liberals as meddlers in issues that should be a matter of personal responsibility

      Nothing new under the sun.

      Leland Ye? Democrat.
      Hillary!? Democrat.
      Tipper gore? Democrat.

      Not that republicans aren't meddling either, but to trust in any politician/political party to represent a consistant pro-freedom position is...problematic.
    • I must be the 912,291th person on Slashdot *alone* to have pointed out this rather obvious fact.

      And yet they still get modded up as insightful every goddamned time...
    • by BlightThePower (663950) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @12:53PM (#13065003)
      I was of the understanding the Mrs Clinton was rather good at overlooking sexual escapades right under her nose.
  • by jkujawa (56195) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:29AM (#13062808) Homepage
    Is Hillary trying to seek the Presidential nomination from again?

    Sure looks like a Republican from here.
    • Hillary is just doing what her husband did quite succesfully in 1996 when he ran his campaign based on the most popular bits of the "Contract with America." She knows she's getting the Democratic nomination if she wants it. She might as well pander as far right as she can so she can practically own the swing vote. She will do this as long as liberal voters let her get away with it.

      Bush also did something similar with his "Compassionate Conservative" campaign back in 2000. You could see him tilting fart
      • She might as well pander as far right as she can so she can practically own the swing vote.

        That strategy didn't work well with Mr. Gore or Mr. Kerry. In this case, I think you may be right, though. The soccer mom center-right will vote for her because she's female ... not to mention many of the anarcho-feminists coming out of the woodwork to vote for her.
    • that goes after this type of material more often.

      However I will agree that Hillary is trying to gain press attention in a particular area so she can sell herself to middle America.

      Whether or not this is something that will help her is immaterial, the key issue is the opponent she chose cannot withstand her position in Government or the media draw she has. In other words, she is playing a safe bet here.

    • Wow so even when a democrat is going overboard with this kind of thing, you still find a way to blame republicans? This issue has been pretty bipartisan...I mainly remember Joe Leiberman (another democrat) leading the way on this the last time it was an issue. Let's keep the partisan "my team is better then yours" crap out of the discussion if it's not relevant.
  • Political Analysis (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MyLongNickName (822545) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:29AM (#13062812) Journal
    For all those who don't know, this is the equivilant of 'Copy Article Text' karma whores.

    On Slashdot, you just go out, find the article, and make sure you are among the first to paste it into yor 'Comment' box. Mods with no brains mark it up. Then, others copy the article text, but because they weren't first, get modded down.

    In the political world, you go out, find a hot button topic, and make sure you are amoung the first to 'go after it', while in reality doing nothing. Voters with no brains vote for you. Then, Jesse Jackson goes after the issue, but because he wasn't first, people roll their eyes and laugh.
  • FUD (Score:4, Insightful)

    by n3k5 (606163) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:31AM (#13062825) Journal
    Hillary Clinton alrady spread FUD about GTA* being a 'murder simulator'; either she is an idiot for critisising a game she never played, or if she played it and still gives the public this biased view, she's a liar. As i previously said [slashdot.org], it's just an arcade game about driving from A to B and then maybe to C, and shooting some targets every now and then. There's no real death, no real sex. Not even virtually real. Just Pac-Man-like game mechanics (but quite entertaining). The player is rewarded for helping people, punished for harming innocents, and taught how to be a better driver.

    Now she has found another lump of coal to throw on her fire and pretends that San Andreas has pornographic content, which is like saying Quake 3 Arena has a brutally realistic damage model (you just need to install this little mod, but most of the code is allready in there!). Again, that's either idiotic or an outright lie. And the large majority of the population (read: voters) isn't all that familiar with this matter and just believes her.
    • by Momoru (837801)
      Also you do not HAVE to kill anyone in GTA. You can simply drive around, and stop at all the stop lights. And it can work just as well as a boring real life simulator.
  • Boo for sex (Score:4, Funny)

    by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro@@@gmail...com> on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:31AM (#13062830) Journal
    Sex is a clearly dangerous and malevolent thing that needs wiped from our society.
    If nobody had sex , then pretty soon (about 100 years tops ), then their would be no crime , No poverty , no overcrowding , no more poloution , many animals species would be allowed to thrive.
    I clap my hands for Hillary Clitnon , and support her cause to wipe out Humanity .
    Security Welfare ,Senator Clinton .
    (/sarcasm)
  • Clinton will hold a press conference to discuss legislative solutions to keep inappropriate video game content out of the hands of young people.

    Isn't that the parents' responsibility?

    I don't want the government raising my children. It was bad enough when Clinton wanted a village to do it... I definitely don't want a bunch of bureaucrats to do it unless they want to come over to change dirty diapers and clean up puke.
  • This is nothing more than Clinton trying to plant seeds which will (in her campaign directors' minds) help her appear not quite as left-leaning in '08. It's retarded but in general people in this country want to vote for someone who is perceived as "pro-morality" -- which ironically disqualifies just about every Senator and Governor in the USA.
  • What kind of message is this going to give to kids really? It seems the issue is this:

    "There's no problem with a game containing large amounts of violence and illegal activity, PROVIDING there's no sex in it!"

    Really, if I was a parent (which currently I'm not) I'd be much more worried about the violence and stuff in GTA, than any amount of sex. Maybe if it was rape, then I'd be a little more sympathetic to their point of view.

    I don't pretend to understand the ratings system in america, but in good old Bl
  • Why is it that people can't come out and say exactly what the real problem is?

    If we assume that Rockstar actually coded the sex scenes, and then removed access to them, how can we logically punish them for this? There isn't a secret button combination or set of actions you can use to activate the scenes, you have to hack the game to do it. How can we hold Rockstar responsible for this?

    It seems to me the real reason this issue is being pushed is because Rockstar may have at one point intended to include sc
    • by Blakey Rat (99501)
      The ESRB rules specify that Rockstar must provide all the potentially objectionable material to their reviewers in an easy-to-view fashion. (i.e. don't make their reviewers play the entire game through 50 times to 'unlock' it.) Rockstar didn't submit the "hot coffee" minigame, and yet it shipped on the disk.

      The question here is whether material on the disk, but normally inaccessible, should be rated by the ESRB... and it's a good question that needs to be answered. The ESRB is upset that it shipped, but
  • Yea, this issue is so much more important than fixing the problem of people dying in this country because they cannot afford healthcare. I am so glad to see that Clinton cares more about what our children see rather than if they or ther parents can survive a curable illness because they cannot afford to see a doctor and or the medication to correct the problem.
  • Oh, come on (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ALeavitt (636946) * <<aleavitt> <at> <gmail.com>> on Thursday July 14, 2005 @10:19AM (#13063272)
    Hasn't anybody considered the fact that downloading this patch requires the internet skills necessary to locate the patch, and then the computing skills necessary to apply it? If a kid can find the Hot Coffee mod on the net, he/she can find porn on the net. Hell, most people who couldn't find the Hot Coffee mod could find porn on the net. But censoring the intarweb was sooooo 90s, and it didn't succeed, so now they're going after video games.
    As a complete non-sequitir, does anybody know of a country where the right to free speech actually exists, and the government doesn't tell the citizens what they can and can't choose to view?
    • As a complete non-sequitir, does anybody know of a country where the right to free speech actually exists, and the government doesn't tell the citizens what they can and can't choose to view?

      Do me a favor, if you ever do find such a place, send me a note and I'll be on the first boat with you.

      [rant] I am so sick of prudes in power letting us all know that things that make them feel icky should be illegal. Liberals tend to say to these people 'if you don't like it, change the channel' to which the respons

  • Attack on 2 fronts (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shoptroll (544006) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @10:19AM (#13063273)
    They're only doing this cause they want another nail to put GTA in the coffin with.

    For all the over-the-top stuff in the game, it is a piece of smart satirical writing (listen to the radio stations and look at the adverts in the game if you don't know what I mean).

    GTA has been able to evade every politician's attempts to nail it to the wall with the violence issue. Now they have another weapon to blast at it with.

    Still, common sense says: it's M. Kids under 17 shouldn't have it, and those that do have it and have used the patch have probably seen worse on satellite/cable tv.
  • Social Conservatives (Score:2, Interesting)

    by boot1780 (807085)
    First she's teaming up with Newt Gingrich and now this. The point is to curry favor with social conservatives before her inevitable run for president. Just the sound of her name makes the fundamentalists empty out their wallets and pocketbooks. Look for more of this to come.
  • We have over 1000 dead in Iraq, we have thousands and thousands permanently crippled, al-Qaeda is doing infinitely better @ recruiting than our own Army... yet, the biggest problem she can tackle is video games?

    WHAT THE FUCK!!
  • by AzraelKans (697974) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @10:34AM (#13063397) Homepage
    Let me see, this happens America Aka JesusLand, The country that voted "twice" for a guy with an IQ of 80 who sent their sons (not HIS sons though) to a bloody war in the middle of the fucking desert to the wrong country (according Michael Moore at least) and allowed terrorism to their doorsteps in the process, instead of voting for a guy who didnt opossed to gay marriage.

    Hmm.. Id say Rockstar is pretty much screwed.

    Rockstar just move to Canada and get over with it, next time you wont have to lock the sex game. ;)

    p.s. Whats this fixation with politicians and GTA anyway? havent they noticed god of war has twice the blood, none of the choice to be bad or not and a completely unlocked sex game? or what about the sex scenes in fable? the guy game (which are real girls btw) or playboy mansion? those arent locked either.

    Or if you want to go there, what about the nude patches for DOAVB or Tomb raider?
  • by petrus4 (213815) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @10:39AM (#13063432) Homepage Journal
    Attention Boomers. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but despite the amount you might wish it to be the contrary, the 1950s are well and truly over. Deal with it. Yes, the world is a lot more secular, and a lot less racist, and yes, the gays and wiccans have ascended from the sewers and are now legally able to walk among the rest of us. On the other side of the sexual hypocrisy-related fence, a man (or woman) can now actually be caught and criminally charged for molesting their children. Horrifying concepts, I know...but if I've learned to acclimatise to it, so can you. Postmodernism and moral relativism have inherited the earth, and like it or not, there ain't no going back.

    That of course is the crux of what this is about...people in Hillary's generational bracket having delusional recollections of the era of their own childhood, and wish to attempt to force said delusions upon the rest of the world. With the dawn of each new day I seem to read yet another report of an attempt at fascist control by some beurecratic 50+ year old suffering from the effects of advanced neurological decomposition. I've said it before, and I'll say it again...Hillary and the rest of her geriatric, sexually deprived ilk need to be in nursing homes...NOT in the halls of government.
  • You need to download a third party mod to access the game. It's no different to the user than it would be if the mode was the game. The mod even adds nude skins, not part of the original game. Rockstar can't control that.
  • by Rimbo (139781) <rimbosity@@@sbcglobal...net> on Thursday July 14, 2005 @12:36PM (#13064783) Homepage Journal
    If Rockstar actually left the content in that wasn't the smartest thing they've ever done, but it's not like they killed a puppy.

    You're not too familiar with the United States, are you?

    Remember, this was the country initially founded by Separatists, the country that put the "duh" in "fundamentalism."

    The country where you can have all kinds of death and explosions and only get a PG-13 rating, but show one human penis and you get slapped with NC-17.

  • by nobodyman (90587) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @02:09PM (#13065922) Homepage
    ARGH! Okay...seriously...it's already rated M. It's out of the hands of children. If Rockstar actually left the content in that wasn't the smartest thing they've ever done, but it's not like they killed a puppy.


    Actually, I find Rockstar's behaviour incredibly irresponsible. Now now, hear me out . It sounds like I'm about to make a moral stand... i'm not.

    Here's the deal. Rockstar has been playing a very dangerous game. They that the controversy of GTA3 helped their profits more than it hurt. After making this realization, they've been ratcheting up the controversy -- the GTA series has arguably become more and more violent and lost most of its "comical" violence, and of course there's Manhunt. Manhunt is the most obvious example - were it not for the controversy (and subsequent free publicity to gamers wanting to know what that controversy was about) that piece of crap would have sold all of 3 copies.

    So they've playing this game of chicken with the media and the US government, trying to see just how far they could push it. Then they include the "hot coffee" content, knowing it would be easily unlocked while having the out of saying it was the work of hackers who had to tweak the code. Make no mistake: Rockstar wanted the hot coffee content to be unlocked.

    Unfortunately, it's not just Rockstar that takes the heat. The media resoundly thinks that Developers are amoral thugs and that all gamers are pathological timebombs. And when congress steps in and decides to regulate, they wont regulate only Rockstar games. Everyone in the industry suffers.

    I believe in freedom of expression, and it puts me in the position of defending Rockstar. I think they should have the freedom to do make any type of game they please. However, not for one second do I think that the company is run by anything other than irresponsible media whores.
    • by NBarnes (586109) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @04:07PM (#13067106)
      That was kinda my responce, too, actually. And that from someone who is themselves a game dev professional. Right or wrong, our country is obviously having a social debate about videogames, and in the middle of that, Rockstar is not just putting out iterations of GTA3, but... releasing content like this. Thanks for helping the rest of us in the industry reach some sort of accord and avoid uneccesary regulation, Rockstar. When I have to put my next indie release through some chickenshit review board process, I'll make sure to send you a nice note.

EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER

Working...