Clinton Introduces Invasive Game Legislation 157
An anonymous reader writes "Senator Clinton has introduced a doozy of a game bill. It mandates an investigation of the gaming industry to determine how pervasive hidden mature content like the 'Hot Coffee' mod is." GamePolitics is reporting on the bill itself, as well as the ESA's response. From the latter article: "While we are gratified that the Senator holds the ESRB in such high regard that her bill would give these ratings the force of law, the courts have made clear that giving a private party governmental powers is unconstitutional. Beyond that, the bill clearly infringes the constitutionally protected creative rights of the video game industry. Thus, if enacted, the bill will be struck down as have similar bills passed in several states...." More commentary at Gamasutra.
To The Editors (Score:2, Insightful)
just curious... (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I have a problem with the bill even existing, but I find the double standard to be particularly disturbing. I guess we're looking at FOTM politics.
le sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:just curious... (Score:2, Insightful)
We've already had book burnings and banned movies. And after video games, the fundies will jump on the bandwagon against those evil holographic crystals
Misplaced Priorities (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems to me that government in general lately has been more concerned with legislation that protects "morality" (e.g. media content, gay marriages, etc.) than with doing anything that tangibly affects people such as health care. It's like going back to the days of the Puritans and all of their 'blue laws' (many of which still exist in New England).
The Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
The video game industry needs to start making campaign contributions to politicians at a level on par with the film and music industries.
P-A-R-E-N-T-I-N-G (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop blaming the game companies and start being a parent. If you don't have the time to spend to screen games and movies for your children, and if you're just letting them have whatever they want, then your parenting skills need some work. Obviously Dora the Explorer is probably going to be okay. Any game that has a masked gunman on the front, more than likely will not be okay.
My wife and I recently went to go see Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Our daughter (4.5 years old) has seen movies 1-3. We thought the dementors in part 3 would be a problem for her, but we told her ahead of time "This movie has some dark ghost-looking things in it, do you think you'll be okay with that." Of course she's going to say yes, (as she did) but it at least gave her a heads up when she did see them. We told her that we were seeing #4 before we did, and we told her why. Even at 4.5 years, she understood (or seemed to) that maybe that movie was too much for a little girl and that if we didn't think it was okay for her to watch it, then she wouldn't get to see it. It wasn't, and she didn't. She (luckily) understood that and didn't even give it a second thought. She just said "Will I get to watch it when I'm older?" and we of course said yes.
Before you ask, was I going to see the movie anyway? Probably. The difference being that we went through the trouble of getting a family member to watch her while we went, instead of just taking her in the first place.
A neighbor's kid watched The Ring [imdb.com] because he wasn't being supervised (at all) and he had horrific nightmares for about 3 months because of it. The parents got upset and started blaming the studio. Finally another neighbor (who wasn't afraid to speak her mind) said that it was basically their fault that they weren't involved in what their child was watching. It happened in their own house, on the family TV, while they were home.
Any fool can have a child, but it takes a lot of effort to be able to call yourself a parent. Senator Clinton thinks she knows whats best for your children. While I might not always make the best decision with respect to my kids, I do try to, but the bottom line is that they are MY kids, and its MY decision.
Re:Misplaced Priorities (Score:3, Insightful)
Usually when a government project screws up it's because the contractors bidding on the work are corrupt (either incapable or incompetent or both).
Look at Diebold as a prime example.
But why take my word for it. You drive on public highways, using your government mandated safety test passing vehicle, your kids likely attend public school and can get public emergency health care. You're subject to government standards for food and bio safety regulations (FDA, NIST and a dozen others...), etc...
There are a lot of things in your daily life that are controlled by the government. Know what's in your drinking water? The soil around your house? The very air you breath?
Who is fucking up the water, soil and air though? Is it the government or companies who process chemicals that spill into underground waterways, cars that pollute the air, etc, etc? I can make just as strong argument that private corporations are evil as you can that the government is.
BTW you can't get cheap heart medication because the same company is also trying to make new ways to get your penis [yeah I said it, penis] hard to pleasure your wife. And they go through hundreds of trials [costing millions of dollars] before they get the perfect penis pump pill.
Tom
Nitpick: Conservatives? (Score:3, Insightful)
My only problem with your letter (other than that it's a little confrontational) is your quickness to blame this on conservatives. Although there are certainly too many Jack Thompsons in the world, there are also plenty of Hillary Clintons and Tipper Gores. This is not a liberal-vs-conservative issue - it's a government-vs-individual issue.
People who tend to be pro-big-government also tend to be pro-censorship, and there are at least as many big government liberals as conservatives. The real lesson is that all of us, regardless of the direction of our leanings, need to watch out for those would would claim to represent our wants as they strip us of our liberties. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else you might happen to be, don't think it can't happen in your party.
Re:LOOK AT ME (Score:4, Insightful)
If she were a Moderate, or a Conservative, then she would have run for Senator in Arkansas, her last state of residence. She might have won, even though she is a Yankee. She ran in NY because it is *not* a Conservative state. She went to where her base was.
Re:just curious... (Score:1, Insightful)