Clinton To Take On Rockstar 309
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.
legislative solutions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you legislate good parenting?
e.
Something Familiar - Here to Help (Score:4, Insightful)
Makes sense (not!) (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:legislative solutions? (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:legislative solutions? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good Idea, Bad Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
What political party ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure looks like a Republican from here.
Political Analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Playing devil's advocate (Score:1, Insightful)
When they submitted this game for its ESRB rating, they did not include any notification the "hot chocolate" content. The result of this is that the ESRB rating was potentially inappropriate for the actual game. Now, it's true that in order to see this content, you have to hack around with the game a bit, but this doesn't fundamentally change the problem. Either Rockstar intended this as an "easter egg", in which case they deliberately mislead the ESRB, or else they did not intend it to ever be accessible, in which case they are incompetent.
A movies-style ratings system is the best hope that the videogames industry has of avoiding outright censorship. We're all (I presume, posting on slashdot) agreed that for games to be banned outright on the basis of their content, or for certain types of content (which is not covered by existing criminal laws) to be deemed completely taboo and out of bounds even for adult customers, is a bad thing. Depending on who you ask, opinions on an age-control system seem to range from "a good thing" to "bad, but tolerable".
However, avoiding precisely the kind of legislative blunt instruments that HRC is proposing here relies on the industry playing by the existing rules. If Rockstar has failed to do so, either through malice or incompetence, then they deserve censure.
Re:legislative solutions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I like hillary (Score:5, Insightful)
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:legislative solutions? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I like hillary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I like hillary (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I don't understand. (Score:2, Insightful)
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 scenes such as these in the game. The real reason why Rockstar is under fire (aside from being the de facto target of all video game ignoramus) is because Rockstar may have intended to put something like this in GTA:SA, and may still intend to do so in the future.
Honestly though, if the final version of the game contains no way in which these scenes can be accessed without using tools unavailible within the game, how can we blame Rockstar?
Re:I like hillary (Score:3, Insightful)
Attack on 2 fronts (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I wouldnt bet on Rockstar. (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
substitue legislation for the necessity of parenti (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Generational warfare (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Thanks Hillary (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:legislative solutions? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Makes sense (not!) (Score:3, Insightful)
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 behave responsibly as much as you can but don't expect the majority of 14-17 year olds to not want to explore sexuality once their hormones start pumping.
Re:I like hillary (Score:2, Insightful)
Much better than someone who pushes through an agenda irrespective of public opinion.
Re:substitue legislation for the necessity of pare (Score:1, Insightful)
That was only classic during the fifties, and perhaps a generation before. Before that, the reason a mother stayed home was because taking care of the house was full time backbreaking labour. Mothers didn't have time to take care of skinned knees and put kids back on their bikes. The kids were tossed outdoors to wander or working on keeping the house together. Families were huge, with the older kids taking care of the younger.
The whole nuclear family thing is a crazy idea that came about because of a sudden rise in affluence allowing individual family homes, the invention of labour saving machines, and the proliferation of birth control. We're still figuring out how the hell a nuclear family is supposed to provide some sort of social, community awareness for the children, regardless of whether the mother stays at home. If every house has 1.7 kids, how does a child learn to care about more than 3.7 people?
Your "standard model" was a post-war daydream. It didn't exist before WWII, and it didn't even manage to last out the generation. The first children of that dream were the ones hanging out at Haight-Ashbury. If you think it was ever traditional reality, you've been believing too much heavily censored early American television.
Re:And Jack Thompson's reply.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not like they killed a puppy? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I like hillary (Score:2, Insightful)
That may not be the best example, but you get the idea.
Re:I like hillary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense (not!) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But what will she do after the election? (Score:2, Insightful)
2) Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman from San Francisco. By their standards, she's pretty moderate. Making her minority leader, once again, doesn't mean anything.
Look at Presidental races. The last liberal the Democrats nominated was in 1988 (Dukakis). The Republicans made the mistake of toying with a moderate in '96 (Dole) and he got hammered.
If the Democrats had a similar platform in terms of how much it resonated with their base it would include:
Abolition of the death penalty
Universal health care
Slashed military spending (by at least 33%)
Immediate withdrawl from Iraq
Increased TANF/Welfare Spending
Your average Democrat is somewhere just to the right of Dean. The average Democratic politician is simliar to John Kerry.
Re:I like hillary (Score:4, Insightful)
I am a Libertarian, and I don't see anything the Party platform [lp.org] that can be construed as "the government knows nothing."
I would start by saying "the government is terribly inefficient and should be reduced".
Rockstar deserves what they get. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Rockstar deserves what they get. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Rockstar deserves what they get. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But what will she do after the election? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't Understand Software (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I hate agreeing with Mrs. Clinton, but in this case, I'll have to swallow my pride and agree with her.