Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Government Entertainment Games Politics

Clinton Would Crack Down On Game Content 543

Posted by kdawson
from the proud-of-fepa dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Clinton Would Crack Down On Game Content

Comments Filter:
  • by El_Muerte_TDS (592157) <elmuerte.drunksnipers@com> on Sunday December 23, 2007 @08:02AM (#21797160) Homepage
    Who's yo daddy now? Hillary Clinton, that's who.

    Now parent can focus on what's most important to them... consuming propaganda.
  • by modmans2ndcoming (929661) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @08:06AM (#21797174)
    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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Dakkus (567781)
      Why on earth should all kids be allowed to go and buy GTA IV, Soldier of Fortune or any similar game? The good thing in games is that they let you in their world a lot tighter than movies. (of course this depends on the skill of the director just like in movies) Since games have this thing, their violence or sexualism is even worse for children than those of movies. And since children aren't allowed to buy even adult movies (or K-16, for that matter), then why should they be allowed to buy adult games?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by KDR_11k (778916)
        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?
      • by vertinox (846076) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @09:23AM (#21797618)
        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.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MMC Monster (602931)
          Give it a break. How many of you have tried alcohol before you hit 21?

          I sure did. In fact, my parents were serving themselves and I was a pre-teen. I tried it and didn't like it. I didn't have an interest in alcohol until I was in my mid-twenties. I was also exposed to cigarette smoke before I hit 18, and have no interest to chain-smoke.

          I say let parents do some parents and only get into trouble if there is some obvious deleterious issue that manifests itself. If the kid ends up well adjusted, then th
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        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 *wi
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Filip22012005 (852281)

          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.

          I'm not from the US, but I think minors can't buy alcohol, right? That didn't have the effect of alcohol being pulled from the shelves. Perhaps this is just an effect of the video-game industry maturing. 15 years ago your statement would be true. Now I'm not so sure anymore.

          Filip

    • by Ada_Rules (260218)

      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.

      I can already see this thread is going to go in a bad direction and the negative moderation points will be flying...oh well.

      If one were really serious about this one particular issue that I don't see how you could support Gulianni or anyone else. You'd really need to back Ron Paul. He is the closest to being a Libertarian candidate. In general the Republicans and the Democrats both want to take away your rights -- they just differ on which of your rights they want to take away.

      I have a very hard tim

      • by nomadic (141991)
        You'd really need to back Ron Paul.

        I'm watching him on Meet the Press right now seeing his chances sink even lower.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by vertinox (846076)
      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.

      Truth be told (which I am rather embarrassed about now), I voted for Bush in 2000 because and only because of Tipper Gore and Lieberman's stance on video games.

      Of course in my defense, not in my wildest dreams would I ever think Bush would pass something like the PATRIOT Act, get us embroiled in a war, and keep the budget in check instead of giving us a
  • Yup (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pogdranaut (1103447) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @08:09AM (#21797190)
    And when I'm president, I'll work to protect children from Hilary Clinton.
    • I'd go a step further and protect them from government and industry. I think they really, really need some protection from them.
  • by Aphrika (756248) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @08:11AM (#21797202)
    ...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.
    • by _KiTA_ (241027) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @10:38AM (#21798082) Homepage
      ...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.


      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.
    • by daemonenwind (178848) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @12:37PM (#21798830)
      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 [arstechnica.com]

      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.
  • by smchris (464899) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @08:13AM (#21797220)
    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!
    • 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 li
  • by BlabberMouth (672282) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @08:14AM (#21797226)
    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.
  • by jonwil (467024) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @08:16AM (#21797234)
    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)
  • Hrm! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by F-3582 (996772) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @08:17AM (#21797244)
    Did anyone even bother reading the actual article? If nt, the do it now!

    A few examples:

    On-site store managers would be subject to a fine of $1,000 or 100 hours of community service for the first offense and $5,000 or 500 hours of community service for each subsequent offense.
    Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. A store selling 18+ games to twelve-year-olds should be punished.

    The bill would also require an annual, independent analysis of game ratings and require the FTC to conduct an investigation to determine whether hidden sexual content like what was in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is a pervasive problem and to take appropriate action
    Good idea, honestly. Sorry, but I found Hot Coffee pretty stupid.

    Finally, the bill would authorize the FTC to conduct an annual, random audit of retailers to monitor enforcement and report the findings to Congress.
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sqlrob (173498)
      Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. A store selling 18+ games to twelve-year-olds should be punished.

      What about a store that sells unrated or R movies to children? All media or none, otherwise the constitutional bar isn't met.

      After all, this legislation is going to affect underage people, unlike Jack Thompson's ideas of banning such games for everyone.

      Chilling Effect. So yes, it does effect adults.

      • by DMadCat (643046)
        Then maybe we should just lift all laws barring kids from buying anything. Porn? Here ya go Junior! Booze? Drink up Suzy!

        Why do I get the feeling most of the posts that are against any regulation here are either by kids under 18 or people who don't have kids?

        While these rules they're attempting to install may inconvenience you a little, try to look past your own somewhat selfish needs and maybe understand what good this might have for the rest of the community.
        • The point is that regulating video games is not addressing any problems, nor is regulating porn, nor is a drinking age. Teenagers can get porno with or without the law, if they want it, and with or without the law, it is still the parents' job to raise their kids, and teach them about such things. Teenagers can get alcohol with or without the law, and it is still the parents' job to raise their kids to drink responsibly. Teenagers can get video games, of all sorts, and it is their parents' job to teach t
    • Re:Hrm! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @09:14AM (#21797560)
      This is just another reason why I am going to vote third party -- for all the things Democrats have going for them, they pull something like this.

      Fining a video game store for selling certain games to minors? Who decides what games are appropriate for minors? When I was 12, a friend of mine and I played Doom II on his Sega Saturn, and neither of us was harmed by it, even when we decided to have fun and run around with the chainsaw, spewing blood all over the place. When I was 14, I got a hold of a copy of GTA 3, and my friends and I thought it was great fun to run around shooting cops with a rocket launcher, and again, nobody was harmed by it.

      What counts as a harmful game? "Hidden sexual content?" I wasn't aware that 12 year olds were harmed by sex as depicted in the GTA games. It is a stretch to claim that after playing a game like San Andreas, teenagers were running around, joining gangs, picking up hoes, and killing cops. If a teenager has emotional problems to begin with, or has trouble distinguishing the fantasy presented in a video game from reality, then they need professional psychological help.

      Just how far do we take the "harmful" label, anyway? Is it more harmful to be in a game where your character is a gang member shooting cops, or a game where your character is a pilot dropping bombs over Vietnam and Iraq? Are both games harmful? What about a game where you are a wizard, who throws bolts of lighting at your enemies and electrocutes them? What if the Ender's Game novels were made into a video game; would that be harmful to youth? For that matter, why hasn't Ender's Game been taken off the shelves, or subjected to an age requirement: Ender murders a few of his classmates, with his bare hands, and then leads an army to commit genocide. Why isn't Mrs. Clinton calling for a crack down on violent novels as well, which describe violence in quite a bit of detail, far more than a video game can (video games can only provide a visual and audio reference; a written work can describe all the senses in a single passage)?

      Of course, video games are an easy target, just like music was an easy target in the 80s and 90s, or hippies were an easy target in the 60s and 70s, or Jazz singers in the 20s. A candidate who wants to say they are protecting our youth only needs to find an easy target, and they are good to go: Lieberman chose Marilyn Manson, Al Gore chose Twisted Sister, and Hillary Clinton chose San Andreas. I doubt that any of them actually care about our kids, except to try and get our votes.

      • Is it more harmful to be in a game where your character is a gang member shooting cops, or a game where your character is a pilot dropping bombs over Vietnam and Iraq? Are both games harmful?

        If I were a parent looking to censor my kids' games, I'd be more worried about the second than the first. A game in which you are a gangster shooting cops portrays behaviour that both I and the State firmly discourage. A game in which you are a pilot blowing up Iraqis portrays behaviour that I firmly discourage, but f

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Just Some Guy (3352)

      Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. A store selling 18+ games to twelve-year-olds should be punished.

      Screw you and your anti-liberty nanny state. Seriously. Either we believe games are harmful (in which case they should be behind the counter like cigarettes and hardcore pr0n) or they aren't (in which case this should be no more illegal than letting a kid see an R-rated movie). People who want to add more laws in the name of The War On Something make me feel far more violent than does any video game I've ever played.

    • by Amigori (177092)
      Ok, so I don't disagree with the community service aspect of the punishment, but 100h/500h seems very excessive, especially when 'real' criminals may receive 10h-25h for something far more dangerous to the human community.

      Hot Coffee was stupid and way overblown. Watch an episode of CSI where they're investigating illicit drug users, brothels, or any other controversial 'sin' crime. Far more explicit with a greater audience of viewers. And as liberal as Hollywood tends to be, they would certainly object
    • Actually Jack Thompson claims he wants exactly the same thing. He always claims that he just wants it to be illegal to sell the games to minors.

      Regardless, what is you reason for wanting such laws? Why should the sale of videogames be regulated when no other medium in the USA has its ratings regulated by the government?
    • by berashith (222128)
      where did the twelve year old get the money? How did the twelve year old get to the store? Why does the twelve year old have unsupervised access to the systems required to play this content?

      All of these questions can be corrected by active parenting. None of these situations requires a government board to get together to review processes and make laws, unless of course we should all just give up on bothering to parent our offspring. you know, just get drunk, fuck, breed, turn over the little brats to someon
    • On-site store managers would be subject to a fine of $1,000 or 100 hours of community service for the first offense and $5,000 or 500 hours of community service for each subsequent offense.

      And when said retailer is in Canada, Mexico, or China?

      The bill would also require an annual, independent analysis of game ratings and require the FTC to conduct an investigation to determine whether hidden sexual content like what was in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is a pervasive problem and to take appropriate action

      And when the design studio is in France, the UK, Ireland, Canada, South Africa, or China? Especially if they offer their content online or allow to download via the internet with servers hosted out side of the Jurisdiction?

      Finally, the bill would authorize the FTC to conduct an annual, random audit of retailers to monitor enforcement and report the findings to Congress.

      See above remarks. And to this one, great, another "Random" government inspection. And are they going to go after the big box shops? No. It will be the smaller businesses. Not that there are a lot of them, but there are

  • by Rohan427 (521859) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @08:18AM (#21797250)
    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
  • by eebra82 (907996) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @08:20AM (#21797262) Homepage
    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?
  • by jascat (602034) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @08:25AM (#21797286)

    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.

    • ...this sort of thing goes directly against my belief that government should not be getting up into this type of thing.
    • by aussie_a (778472)

      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.
      Your system is the most fucked up and rigged system I've ever seen. Normally I wouldn't advocate violence, but you people need to do SOMETHING to reclaim your rights! Currently you have a democracy as much as Russia or China had communism.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by almeida (98786)

      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.
  • 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 ol
  • 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
    • by Radres (776901)
      My only concern with Ron Paul is that I think he would be very successful at abolishing the truly useful government programs like OSHA and the FDA and he would have a hard time taking down the more powerful and harmful ones like the Fed.
  • Alright. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Rie Beam (632299)
    "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 o
  • 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
  • Cruelity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rie Beam (632299) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @09:12AM (#21797540) Journal
    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.
  • Parenting (Score:3, Insightful)

    by delvsional (745684) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @09:13AM (#21797542)
    _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.
  • by Lord of Hyphens (975895) <lordofhyphens@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Sunday December 23, 2007 @09:17AM (#21797570) Homepage

    Clinton Will Pander To Whomever Her Focus Groups Tell Her

    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.
  • by Kamineko (851857)
    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
  • by bigbigbison (104532) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @09:49AM (#21797776) Homepage
    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.
  • by sleight (22003) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @11:17AM (#21798280)
    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 [commonsensemedia.org].

    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...
  • by yroJJory (559141) <me AT jory DOT org> on Sunday December 23, 2007 @11:29AM (#21798378) Homepage
    She was was a founding member of the PMRC, which actively focused on censoring music, especially getting rid of that evil, evil rap music.

  • 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

There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it reluctantly. -- Publius Terentius Afer (Terence)

Working...