Anti-Gaming Legislation Democrats Guilty of Pulling Stunts?

[fitbabits]

According to this article (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3153&Itemid=2) from Next Generation (http://www.next-gen.biz) (quoted from the original Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com) article), the answer could be yes.

In an editorial in the Washington Times, the paper calls out Democrats' push for games legislation, calling their efforts "stunts," even though anti-game efforts have been coming from both major parties.

The generally conservative-slanted Times specifically targeted the anti-game duo of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Joeseph Lieberman. The two politicians introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act late last year to stop the sale of "violent and pornographic" games to minors.

The Times editorial reads, "If the Clinton-Lieberman gaming law goes the way its predecessors have, the push for regulations will be revealed as the stunt it is. We'd vastly prefer politicians to fight real violence, not the kind in video consoles."

"Most [anti-game bill supporters] are Democrats with strong interests in easy 'moral values' scores. Smells like opportunism to us."
Don't you just love the fact that video games seem to be the whipping boy of this election year?

[Heretic Machine]

I hate democrats. Honestly, they are just as corrupt as the neo-cons, and are mostly even more conservative. It seems like liberals have really gotten the shaft as far as politics go these days, since neither of the two parties are liberal anymore.

[SexualChoc]

Sometimes it's good to live in the UK when it comes to gaming. This is all based on the fact that some kid goes nuts, kills people, and they find GTA at thier house. That's like saying some caught cancer because the drove past a hospital. When will they learn it's not the games, it's bad parenting? You guys have people passing laws, in the UK we have just some paper saying how video games demoralizes youth.

Video games is the Rock and Roll of the 20th century.

[Busted_Astromech]

They're silly, of course. A large portion of the states with video game legislation have Republican sponsors. I haven't done any percentages, but it seems like it's at least 50/50.

I'm not going to defend the Democrat's for this position because any politician that does this is pandering and they know it. It's the Washington Democrats that are the ones coming out in support of this which makes the Times draw its conclusion.

[hideouslywrinkled]

Don't you just love the fact that video games seem to be the whipping boy of this election year?

Don't forget gay marriage and immigration. Together, they combine to form the ultimate politico trifeca... and maybe a new Captain Planet. (Captain Politic?)

[fitbabits]

Don't forget gay marriage and immigration. Together, they combine to form the ultimate politico trifeca... and maybe a new Captain Planet. (Captain Politic?)
Ah, how could I forget? I'm counting the days till Bush devotes his Saturday address to video games!

[Busted_Astromech]

Don't forget gay marriage and immigration. Together, they combine to form the ultimate politico trifeca... and maybe a new Captain Planet. (Captain Politic?)
Of course. He combines the powers of Crotchety Old Man (Charlton Heston), Concerned Wimmenfolk (Phyllis Schlafly), Violent-Anti-Violent-Games Activist (Jack Thompson), Hellfire-and-Brimstone Preacher (James Dobson), and Heart (Ma-ti).

When their powers combine, he is: Captain Politic! His skin is white with red stripes and his eyes, blue as a Kansas sky, have stars for pupils. He can contort into supporting any position as long as it involves some sort of demagoguery and speaks the mythical language of Teevee.

[Heretic Machine]

Of course. He combines the powers of Crotchety Old Man (Charlton Heston), Concerned Wimmenfolk (Phyllis Schlafly), Violent-Anti-Violent-Games Activist (Jack Thompson), Hellfire-and-Brimstone Preacher (James Dobson), and Heart (Ma-ti).

When their powers combine, he is: Captain Politic! His skin is white with red stripes and his eyes, blue as a Kansas sky, have stars for pupils. He can contort into supporting any position as long as it involves some sort of demagoguery and speaks the mythical language of Teevee.

He also has a huge wallet to store all the money he gets from special interest groups.

[MaiXu]

"Most [anti-game bill supporters] are Democrats with strong interests in easy 'moral values' scores. Smells like opportunism to us."

Smells like opportunism?

SEE: POLITICS, you jackasses.

[Bydo_Empire]

I know I shouldn't even post, nothing good can come of it. But...

I'm not going to defend the Democrat's for this position because any politician that does this is pandering and they know it. It's the Washington Democrats that are the ones coming out in support of this which makes the Times draw its conclusion.
Agreed 100%. The Minnesota bill signed last week I believe was a Republican bill. Joe Lieberman is barely a Democrat, and has a good chance of losing his reelection to Ned Lamont this fall. Hillary is a big name politician, but doesn't represent the party as a whole. Not by a long shot. Unfortunately, their support of stuff like this makes their party look bad, and gives more ammo to the Right (nevermind the war, the economy, the budget, national security, gay rights, religious freedom, personal freedom, upholding the Constitution, etc). Grrrrr... Democrats Bad. Taxes bad. Grrrr.... beer good... Gaming-laws baaaaad (as long as their sponsored by Dems).... Grrrrrrrrr...

[Busted_Astromech]

He also has a huge wallet to store all the money he gets from special interest groups.
*Headslap*
How could I forget his most powerful power, the "Crush You With My Wallet"?

(Special thanks to Chris Rock in Down to Earth for that joke)

[Nominal]

Don't forget gay marriage and immigration. Together, they combine to form the ultimate politico trifeca... and maybe a new Captain Planet. (Captain Politic?)
Surely somewhere there is a videogame where you sneak Mexican lesbians across the border so they can get married after first finding a professional in a safe, sanitary location to abort the fetus they were impregnated with when they were raped by the drunken Minuteman.

I'm not endorsing or condemning that kind of thing. I'm just sayin'

[torrefaction]

Here's a fair warning to politicians:
Back the FUCK off my videogames.

Dear god...only another 20 years until their generation is out of power. I'm counting the moments. Here's to hoping my generation remembers all this bullshit (From both sides of the damn fence.), and brings someone with Libertarian ideals to power.

The donkey and the fucking elephant need to be taken to the backyard and be put down.

[torrefaction]

Surely somewhere there is a videogame where you sneak Mexican lesbians across the border so they can get married after first finding a professional in a safe, sanitary location to abort the fetus they were impregnated with when they were raped by the drunken Minuteman.

I'm not endorsing or condemning that kind of thing. I'm just sayin'

Jack Thompson is going to be pissed. That was going to be his challenge next week!

[fndarkone]

Here's a fair warning to politicians:
Back the FUCK off my videogames.

Dear god...only another 20 years until their generation is out of power. I'm counting the moments. Here's to hoping my generation remembers all this bullshit (From both sides of the damn fence.), and brings someone with Libertarian ideals to power.

The donkey and the fucking elephant need to be taken to the backyard and be put down.
the aphorism "like father, like son" comes to mind. Politicians will be politicians just like the ones before them.

[Valkyrist]

Ah, how could I forget? I'm counting the days till Bush devotes his Saturday address to video games!

Bah, Bush prolly spends his weekends playing CS:Source making "punk-ass bitches, suck it down!" He just strikes me as the type ^.^

Lieberman has been trying to stuff his anti-gaming laws (all of which failed so far) for years and years, so this is nothing new. Hillary jumping on the bandwagon IS new, and I agree it's just pure "easy morals" politics.

[Deadend]

Hilary has been jumping on this crap before, the woman seems to do whatever it takes to win. Ah well, this stuff will get shot down again as the Judical branch is not as political. Liberman WANTS these laws, Clinton wants to show that she supports causes(tm). Ask yourself, which is worse?

[torrefaction]

Liberman WANTS these laws, Clinton wants to show that she supports causes(tm). Ask yourself, which is worse?

Yes.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

[Mason]

I hate democrats. Honestly, they are just as corrupt as the neo-cons, and are mostly even more conservative. It seems like liberals have really gotten the shaft as far as politics go these days, since neither of the two parties are liberal anymore.
Dude, both of them are DLC Dems, the party's conservative wing. Given that the DLC are still gung-ho on the whole Iraq thing, they've become increasingly ostracized from the DNC. The only reason they're still listened to at all is momentum from the Clinton years.

Right now, family-values conservatives are still stuck on gays, abortion, and evolution. If they ever win on those (reason forbid), expect them to go searching for new cultural targets to keep their base enraged. Games are the lowest-hanging fruit there, a child-corrupting industry without many lobbyists, which is already a favored pinata of the seers at your local news affiliates.

Jack Thompson is a single Christian conservative that just happens to be ahead of his time. Look at what he's done in a few short years. Woe be to us when more catch up.

[Mason]

Ah, how could I forget? I'm counting the days till Bush devotes his Saturday address to video games!
We'd be better off. (http://www.evilninja.net/buybush.htm)

[Zechs01]

It seems to me that anti-game bills are a violation of the first amendment.

[Mason]

It seems to me that anti-game bills are a violation of the first amendment.
Since when have minors had full constitutional rights?

This stuff shouldn't pass, but that's not a valid argument.

BTW, here's a 2004 Op/Ed in the Washington Times from Mr. Jack Thompson himself (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040701-085600-3597r.htm). So...the outrage here seems to be more that (misguided, conservative) Dems are trying to stake a claim on morals-and-values territory, rather than actual altruism toward games.

[Karmakin]

Please keep in mind that the Democratic base (outside of the party itself), is trying really hard to remove Lieberman from power, and has pretty much no use for Hillary as a whole.

Although I can understand the cynicism surrounding politics as a whole, I highly suggest getting involved, as that's the only thing that's going to make change in the long run.

[vivafletcher]

Can someone explain why this is a bad thing? Instead of acting like video game vigilantes and crying about a loss of rights, gamers should applaud any attempt to keep adult content away from children.

Unless I've read it wrong (and please let me know if I did), adult gamers don't lose any rights to any content. But minors should not be accessing adult themes, whether in movies or in videogames. This doesn't seem anti-game to me. It seems to be anti minors-accessing-adult games, and that's a good thing.

Does anyone really think that young children should play videogames where they beat up hookers and take their money after having sex with them, or cut off a cop's head with a katana like in GTA?

And yes, parents should be supervising the content their children access. But we don't allow minors into porn shops, let them buy cigarettes or puchase a bottle of Jack because "it's the parents job" to monitor them. So why would we allow them to access content in a game that they would NOT be allowed to access in a movie theater?

If someone could show me how this hurts an adult gamer, I'd love to hear it. But you don't have to be a prude, a hypocritical politician or a religious zealot to see that some game content is not appropriate for children.

Flame on!

[Loganrapp]

If someone could show me how this hurts an adult gamer, I'd love to hear it. But you don't have to be a prude, a hypocritical politician or a religious zealot to see that some game content is not appropriate for children.

Flame on!

Because Congress doesn't involve itself in affairs of the MPAA.

The games industry, like movies and television, is self-regulated. As soon as Congress gets involved, the games industry will lose a lot of power. And from there, that's when the damage to adult gamers begins.

[vivafletcher]

Because Congress doesn't involve itself in affairs of the MPAA.

The games industry, like movies and television, is self-regulated. As soon as Congress gets involved, the games industry will lose a lot of power. And from there, that's when the damage to adult gamers begins.

What power will they lose? The ability to self-regulate? Adult pastimes are often regulated by the government...to the extent that they keep it away from children. And Congress can already set heavy fines to television and radio stations (and they've sent a bill to increase it tenfold).

You imply that at some point that will hurt adult gamers, but nobody can show how that will happen exactly. I can understand people not delighting at government interference, but keeping children away from adult content is a good idea. I saw nothing that impacts adult gamers.

[AntB]

Untill I no longer hear the sound of babies and 5 year olds crying during my R-Rated movies, fuck them. Hypocrites.

[torrefaction]

What power will they lose? The ability to self-regulate? .

The federal government needs to stay the hell away from state matters, that's it. I don't mind Minnesota's law so much (although I have issues with fining minors.), but the Federal government is not a moral police. If a state takes that position, fine. I can move to a state that's more like-minded (In case you weren't aware, that's the point of states.) But screw these bastards making a play at federal regulation of a tool used for artistic expression.

[vivafletcher]

The federal government needs to stay the hell away from state matters, that's it. I don't mind Minnesota's law so much (although I have issues with fining minors.), but the Federal government is not a moral police. If a state takes that position, fine. I can move to a state that's more like-minded (In case you weren't aware, that's the point of states.) But screw these bastards making a play at federal regulation of a tool used for artistic expression.

We have federal regulations regarding the distribution of pornography to children, and that's often defended as "artistic expression." Governments (federal, state and local) can and will protect children from adult content. That is not an exclusively-state issue.

Again, I haven't seen anyone show how this affects an adult gamer, our right to adult content or our ability to access it. It does address childrens' access to adult content, and that'sa good thing. Video games have advanced since the days of Custer's Revenge, and children should not be exposed to adult material.

[laggerific]

Don't you just love the fact that video games seem to be the whipping boy of this election year?

I thought it was gay marriage...

Seriously, the Washington Times ripping into Dems is like hannity acting like an ass...

I have no idea whether this is a stunt or not, but it's stupid legislation, and we have more pressing things to look into...like the Iraq war...the full story of 9/11...Katrina cleanup...Iran baiting.

[laggerific]

Untill I no longer hear the sound of babies and 5 year olds crying during my R-Rated movies, fuck them. Hypocrites.

That might be an issue, but you are describing what should happen if this was occurring during NC-17 movies. R movies allow for adults to bring youngins.

[laggerific]

Please keep in mind that the Democratic base (outside of the party itself), is trying really hard to remove Lieberman from power, and has pretty much no use for Hillary as a whole.

Although I can understand the cynicism surrounding politics as a whole, I highly suggest getting involved, as that's the only thing that's going to make change in the long run.


Go Lamont!!!

Seriously...Lieberman is a joke. Lamont is a serious Democrat, in a time where seriousness is required.

[askheaves]

No matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.

[torrefaction]

We have federal regulations regarding the distribution of pornography to children, and that's often defended as "artistic expression." Governments (federal, state and local) can and will protect children from adult content. That is not an exclusively-state issue.

Who in the hell gets to decide? The Bush administration (Disclaimer: I, regretably, voted for Bush.)? Because, god forbid gay marriage gets depicted. That'd get slapped with an M rating for damn sure. Look, I'm not advocating that children should have access to video game pornography. I just don't want censorship by a party who's morales SIGNIFICANTLY differ from mine.

And for the record? Europe seems to do just fine with nudity on TV. You touched on another argument, I don't agree with our laws that put your morales down my freaking throat. I think we'd have less problems and insecurity in our society if children weren't taught pornography was so vile and evil (Did you ever notice you spell those words with the same letters)? God forbid your freaking kids see a naked human body.

Foolishness, it's all foolishness, and it's a slippery goddamn slope.

[askheaves]

Who in the hell gets to decide? The Bush administration (Disclaimer: I, regretably, voted for Bush.)? Because, god forbid gay marriage gets depicted. That'd get slapped with an M rating for damn sure. Look, I'm not advocating that children should have access to video game pornography. I just don't want censorship by a party who's morales SIGNIFICANTLY differ from mine.

Not to mention that our Supreme Court's official position on what constitutes pornography, I kid you not, is "I know it when I see it."

It's real hard to codify into law (legislation, long text describing the nature of a crime, the discrimination from a non-crime, penalties) something that changes with the times as drastically as the 'obscene'. 50 years ago, this type of legislation would keep out of the hands of minors GTA:SA, not based on the violence or sex, but the concept that CJ has a white love interest at one point.

Besides, it's currently a power of the Executive Branch to decide what is profane and obscene in media and to dole out punishment. This kind of oversteps, in more ways than one, some constitutional bounds for congress to enact a law regarding speech.

[torrefaction]

It's real hard to codify into law (legislation, long text describing the nature of a crime, the discrimination from a non-crime, penalties) something that changes with the times as drastically as the 'obscene'. 50 years ago, this type of legislation would keep out of the hands of minors GTA:SA, not based on the violence or sex, but the concept that CJ has a white love interest at one point.


That is exactly what I was getting at. What you deem as obscene, I may not. And I'll be damned if I'm going to have to drive to the store to buy a game for (my as of yet non-existent) kids, because your ass isn't a good enough parent to instill your values in them. OR, maybe it's because your values are stupid, and need rethinking if you can't get your kid to look at things from your point of view.

And as askheaves said, these values change with the times. There's a saying I heard on Penn and Teller's Bullshit. "Everytime you think that there oughtta be a law, there probably shouldn't."

Law's can have far reaching reprocussions, and that's *BAD*

[Nim]

There seems to be a typo in that Wash. Times (cough, cough) article. They wrote that Joe Lieberman is a "Democrat."

They need better editors.

[WastelandDan]

I'm a totally dedicated Democrat but this is just childish. I think this goes beyond partisan politics into the realm of trouble making. They've simply seized upon what's currently a big ticket issue and are running with it like a hobo that's stolen a pie from a windowsill. I think the big issue that everybody's ignoring is parental accountability. It's not like videogames are a loaded shotgun just waiting to blow some kid's head off, they're digital entertainment. Parents need to stop passing the buck.

[Tohoya]

Can someone explain why this is a bad thing? Instead of acting like video game vigilantes and crying about a loss of rights, gamers should applaud any attempt to keep adult content away from children.

Unless I've read it wrong (and please let me know if I did), adult gamers don't lose any rights to any content. But minors should not be accessing adult themes, whether in movies or in videogames. This doesn't seem anti-game to me. It seems to be anti minors-accessing-adult games, and that's a good thing.

Does anyone really think that young children should play videogames where they beat up hookers and take their money after having sex with them, or cut off a cop's head with a katana like in GTA?

And yes, parents should be supervising the content their children access. But we don't allow minors into porn shops, let them buy cigarettes or puchase a bottle of Jack because "it's the parents job" to monitor them. So why would we allow them to access content in a game that they would NOT be allowed to access in a movie theater?

If someone could show me how this hurts an adult gamer, I'd love to hear it. But you don't have to be a prude, a hypocritical politician or a religious zealot to see that some game content is not appropriate for children.

Flame on!


It is anti-vdieo game because it puts video games at a lower level than other mediums, essentially turning it into pornography. There's no similar law for movies (those theatres are checking IDs of their own accord), no similar law for music, no similar law for books. Doing this effectively puts video games outside the sphere of the first ammendment, which everyone can agree is a Bad Thing. How long until censorship comes through for political commentary, all because games aren't covered by the first ammendment?

[Beelzebud]

Video games are not the issue this election cycle. The Republicans have a majority in all 3 branches of government, and what are they spending time on?

Gay Marriage.
Mexican Illegal Immigration (if you're coming from Canada I guess it's ok)

In the post-9/11 world, this is what the Republicans think is worthy of their time in congress... It's pathetic.

[askheaves]

Also, to pile on, it's a drastic thing to make a law, especially for such a small problem. Just stumbled on these wiki articles today regarding the effects of media on public conscience. A statistically insignificant problem is reported in the news for its novelty. Then, another similiar story comes along and it is held up as 'continuing the pattern.' Soon, the stories become the basis of ungrounded fears in peoples' hearts.

Missing White Woman Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome)
[/url]which is a variation on
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviancy_amplification_spiral"]Deviancy Amplification Spiral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviancy_amplification_spiral)
The result ends up being a new law, sponsored by the quickest politician to jump on board, which greatly restricts normal activities in the name of protecting us. Video games, even if found to be 100% causal to every case in which they've been implicated, still represent less of a threat than is worth destroying an industry over. May as well outlaw alligators.

[askheaves]

Gay Marriage.
Mexican Illegal Immigration (if you're coming from Canada I guess it's ok)

In the post-9/11 world, this is what the Republicans think is worthy of their time in congress... It's pathetic.

This is why a lot of us conservatives are jumping ship from the whole "Republican" thing... or why I jumped ship (to Libertarian) around June 2000 when I first registered to vote after moving to Arizona.

Like I said before: no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.

[torrefaction]

In the post-9/11 world, this is what the Republicans think is worthy of their time in congress... It's pathetic.

You're right. But the democrats are no better, and it's lame of you to act like they are. The same issues are what the democrats are dealing with...Plus video games.

But, as askheaves said, a lot of conservatives have jumped ship. I think you can pinpoint me as jumping during the Terry Schiavo fiasco.

[MosBen]

The Times is a rag and a rag founded by Reverend Moon no less. Move along, nothing to see here.

[balamoor]

They will take my Diablo II when the pry it from my cold Dead hand.

Really this and they gay marriage thing is just a way to distract the masses from the fact that all policy is now legislated from Riyadh.

[askheaves]

They will take my Diablo II when the pry it from my cold Dead hand.

Really this and they gay marriage thing is just a way to distract the masses from the fact that all policy is now legislated from Riyadh.

I'll agree with the Diablo sentiment and this Gay Marriage thing is a complete sham, much less a retarded non-issue (let anybody share the misery... seriously)... but the Riyadh comment I can't let pass.

You're saying one of two things: that our leadership takes orders for personal or familial reasons from the Wahabi-style aristocracy of Saudi Arabia directly, or that their oil producing clout dictates our policy.

The first is an amazing stretch. Arab culture has a much more... interesting... stance on homosexuality. The second can't be further from the truth. They have influence, for sure, but to say that they have a larger influence than opinion polls, the local media, business interestes and other special interests is just senseless. Campaign dollars rule supreme over any foreign influence. Believe me, that makes me sicker than any legitimate foreign influence ever could.

We get about 12% of our oil from Saudi Arabia, contrasted by 15% from Mexico, 10% from Venezuela, and a staggering 18% from Canadia... not to mention our own swiftly declining domestic production, currently at about 33%, which could be much higher if we weren't afraid to tread on our Alaskan wastelands or to develop more off-shore exploration and extraction just off our own coasts.

Do we really need to continue this discussion on a gaming forum? There are better outlets for your rage, namely DU, DK, HP, and any number of other lefty elec-rags.

Edit: I think i didn't clarify... those numbers are the percentages of our foreign oil imports, not total oil usage and especially not energy usage, as we get a lot of our energy from coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, etc. Also note that those numbers are rather rough given the 2 minutes of research I did, but not that far off.

The point is, there are far greater influences on our foreign policy, and a different set of far greater influences on our domestic policy than your standard Michael Moore (ooooo!!! boogeyman!!!) film will alude to.

[MosBen]

I think a more charitable interpretation of balamoor's post would be to say that America's reliance on oil influences the way we act abroad. It's not necessarily that those foreign governments sitting on large quantities of oil directly dictate policy, it's that our interest in acquiring oil affects the way we handle and act vis a vis those countries. And yes, we get quite a bit of oil from home, but the Middle East still has enormous oil reserves and I think it's a fair interpretation of balamoor, and I agree with him, to say that we treat those countries differently than if they had no oil, that is, we treat Saudi Arabia differently than, say, Lybia.

[Johan]

Do we really need to continue this discussion on a gaming forum? There are better outlets for your rage...

Finally, a voice of reason...this thread is full of useless, off-topic crap.

I'd like to know why the ESRB opposes the legal implementation of their ratings system in Minnesota, where the CONSUMER would be fined for violating the ESRB guidlines, NOT the retailer. If the ESRB is opposed to legal enforcement, then it seems to me that they are actually saying that their system is really just a facade meant to deflect social/political pressure while allowing retailers and/or consumers to flout the guidelines with no consequences. I don't get the hypocrisy.

[vivafletcher]

Who in the hell gets to decide? The Bush administration (Disclaimer: I, regretably, voted for Bush.)? Because, god forbid gay marriage gets depicted. That'd get slapped with an M rating for damn sure. Look, I'm not advocating that children should have access to video game pornography. I just don't want censorship by a party who's morales SIGNIFICANTLY differ from mine.

And for the record? Europe seems to do just fine with nudity on TV. You touched on another argument, I don't agree with our laws that put your morales down my freaking throat. I think we'd have less problems and insecurity in our society if children weren't taught pornography was so vile and evil (Did you ever notice you spell those words with the same letters)? God forbid your freaking kids see a naked human body.

Foolishness, it's all foolishness, and it's a slippery goddamn slope.

You have a lot of guts admitting you voted for that guy. What were you thinking? :confused:

Nothing is being censored, because adults still have access to any and all content being produced. The government is not make any decisions as to what adults can access in video games. But children are not adults, and businesses shoudl not profit from exposing adult themes to children.

The part about "God forbid your kids see a naked human body" is interesting since you complained about someone shoving their values down their throats. Other people might believe that pornography is vile and evil. They might not want their children seeing adults have sex, and they might not want their kids earning a game bonus for killing police officers or killing hookers. If you think adult content in video games is okay for your kids, go to a store and buy it for them. But it's not unreasonable to deem adult content for adults and prevent businesses from selling adult content to children.

If you're going to use a slippery slope argument, then why should children not be allowed to access pornography? What right does the government have to prevent such artistic expression from reaching children? I don't really buy the slippery slope argument.

[vivafletcher]

It is anti-vdieo game because it puts video games at a lower level than other mediums, essentially turning it into pornography. There's no similar law for movies (those theatres are checking IDs of their own accord), no similar law for music, no similar law for books. Doing this effectively puts video games outside the sphere of the first ammendment, which everyone can agree is a Bad Thing. How long until censorship comes through for political commentary, all because games aren't covered by the first ammendment?

I don't think it puts video games on a lower level. There are federal laws against children's exposure to pornographic movies (not many adult theatres anymore since video is so big, but they still have to adhere to federal laws) and what adult stores remain do have to put adult magazines and books away from minors.

The First Amendment does not guarantee businesses the right to sell adult content to children. When it comes to adults consuming adult content, the First Amendment is unscathed and there is no censorship.

Game developers are not constrained as to what content to produce, and adult gamers are not prevented from buying and enjoying their games. These restrictions affect children accessing adult content and nothing else-- speculation about censorship and limiting free speech is just that.

A million years ago, video games were seen as childrens' toys, and aimed at kids. Ads always had kids playing Atari and the comic books and other content were aimed at children. It was a market aimed at young people.

Things have changed, of course. And I see no problem with the laws addressing this change in gaming demographics by keeping adult content away from children. I would be against censorship like anyone else. But it simply doesn't exist in this kind of legislation.

If adults think that kind of stuff is okay for their kids...they're free to buy them and hand them over to their kids. I don't see anything in the law that would punish a parent for doing that. But there's nothing wrong with laws designed to keep adult content away from children. I'm not saying it's the most important thing in the world (or the 1,000th most important thing), but aside from skepticism of politicians, I don't see a problem with it as written.

[OrangePulp]

If adults think that kind of stuff is okay for their kids...they're free to buy them and hand them over to their kids.

If you don't think that stuff is appropriate for your kids, you're free to take it away from them. The argument works both ways, jack. I caught my first glimpse of porn when I was like, 10. And I've been well supplied ever since, thanks to Mr. Computer here (probably too much information here, but I'm making a point). And hey, what do you know, by all accounts I'm a decent human being. Sex, aka the propogation of one's species, is probably one of the most natural activities one can engage in (along with eating and sleeping and the like); I hate that our society vilifies it so.

And it's the same with violent videogames. I've been playing violent games since Super Contra on the NES. Still a good person. And GTA is one of the most universally enjoyed games in my library; everyone I've ever introduced to it gets a real kick out of it. Why should kids be deinied this pleasure? So that, at worst, parents don't have to have a sit down with their kid, and maybe talk about the difference between fantasy and reality? As if most kids can't make the distinction.

EDIT: And what kind of kid has the money to buy videogames when he doesn't have the reason to understand them? By the time I could afford it (through allowance), I was way past the point of confusing fantasy with reality.

[balamoor]

I'll agree with the Diablo sentiment and this Gay Marriage thing is a complete sham, much less a retarded non-issue (let anybody share the misery... seriously)... but the Riyadh comment I can't let pass.

You're saying one of two things: that our leadership takes orders for personal or familial reasons from the Wahabi-style aristocracy of Saudi Arabia directly, or that their oil producing clout dictates our policy.

The first is an amazing stretch. Arab culture has a much more... interesting... stance on homosexuality. The second can't be further from the truth. They have influence, for sure, but to say that they have a larger influence than opinion polls, the local media, business interestes and other special interests is just senseless. Campaign dollars rule supreme over any foreign influence. Believe me, that makes me sicker than any legitimate foreign influence ever could.

We get about 12% of our oil from Saudi Arabia, contrasted by 15% from Mexico, 10% from Venezuela, and a staggering 18% from Canadia... not to mention our own swiftly declining domestic production, currently at about 33%, which could be much higher if we weren't afraid to tread on our Alaskan wastelands or to develop more off-shore exploration and extraction just off our own coasts.

Do we really need to continue this discussion on a gaming forum? There are better outlets for your rage, namely DU, DK, HP, and any number of other lefty elec-rags.

Edit: I think i didn't clarify... those numbers are the percentages of our foreign oil imports, not total oil usage and especially not energy usage, as we get a lot of our energy from coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, etc. Also note that those numbers are rather rough given the 2 minutes of research I did, but not that far off.

The point is, there are far greater influences on our foreign policy, and a different set of far greater influences on our domestic policy than your standard Michael Moore (ooooo!!! boogeyman!!!) film will alude to.

Wow awesome rant. Ummm guy..... ask anyone that's been around for awhile I have a tendency for very subtle sarcasm. :rolleyes: I thought most folks would have caught that considering how I opened the post with a Chuck Heston Lampoon….but I am dealing with the interweb. :rolleyes:

[vivafletcher]

If you don't think that stuff is appropriate for your kids, you're free to take it away from them. The argument works both ways, jack. I caught my first glimpse of porn when I was like, 10. And I've been well supplied ever since, thanks to Mr. Computer here (probably too much information here, but I'm making a point). And hey, what do you know, by all accounts I'm a decent human being. Sex, aka the propogation of one's species, is probably one of the most natural activities one can engage in (along with eating and sleeping and the like); I hate that our society vilifies it so.

And it's the same with violent videogames. I've been playing violent games since Super Contra on the NES. Still a good person. And GTA is one of the most universally enjoyed games in my library; everyone I've ever introduced to it gets a real kick out of it. Why should kids be deinied this pleasure? So that, at worst, parents don't have to have a sit down with their kid, and maybe talk about the difference between fantasy and reality? As if most kids can't make the distinction.

EDIT: And what kind of kid has the money to buy videogames when he doesn't have the reason to understand them? By the time I could afford it (through allowance), I was way past the point of confusing fantasy with reality.

No, the argument doesn't work both ways. We don't sell cigarettes or alcohol to kids and make the parents "take it away." We don't allow them to watch pornography and leave it up to the parents to keep it from their children. I understand what you're saying, but that's not a real-world argument.

It doesn't matter if you watched porn, smoked cigarettes and got drunk when you were younger, and it doesn't matter how great you are today. Society has determined that some activities (drinking booze, smoking and watching porn) is acceptable for adults but not appropriate for children. It would be irresponsible to introduce that new market to businesses and saddle parents with the responsibility of fighting advertising and marketing strategies that target their children. So instead, we do not allow businesses to sell those elements to minors. Violent video games might become another element minors cannot purchase legally. That does NOTHING to censor the industry or limit what adults consume. Nothing.

And you and I both likely grew up in a different time. It's not far-fetched for kids to get a $50 bill from grandma for their birthday. Even half that could purchase any GTA game today.

GTA is fantasy to adults because we can frame it around our experiences with reality. A 10-year-old has never been pulled over for a traffic ticket, doesn't have a buddy who joined the police force, and doesn't have a lifetime's worth of relationships, girlfriends and marriages. I'm not saying it will make them go out and kill a cop or a prostitute, of course. But when developing brains are mesmerized with a system that rewards violent behavior in a real-world setting (not some cartoony DOOM world, for example)...the BEST you can hope for is that it won't affect them negatively.

I absolutely understand that politicians will use anything to garner votes. What Hillary is doing with video games, her husband tried with Sistah Souljah. But the truth is that video games have changed over the decades. Some are for young people, but the average gamer is now older and many (if not most) are adults. That has driven the industry to pursue more adult themes. Nothing wrong with that; it's an evolving industry and as gamers we all benefit from their innovation.

But it also means that some children are exposed to adult material, and that's not appropriate. Society has long held that some adult activities and content are not suitable for young people. As a parent, you're free to purchase GTA for a five-year-old if you want. And as an adult, nothing would change-- no censorship, limits to accessing content, etc. But there's nothing wrong with including a relatively new form of adult entertainment on the list of items children should not be allowed to purchase, even if it's only a few titles. As business models change, so should the law.

If we were talking about adults I'd share in your frustration. But we're talking about children. Where's the censorship?

[askheaves]

Wow awesome rant. Ummm guy..... ask anyone that's been around for awhile I have a tendency for very subtle sarcasm. :rolleyes: I thought most folks would have caught that considering how I opened the post with a Chuck Heston Lampoon….but I am dealing with the interweb. :rolleyes:

Apology Accepted ;)

[Beelzebud]

You're right. But the democrats are no better, and it's lame of you to act like they are. The same issues are what the democrats are dealing with...Plus video games.

But, as askheaves said, a lot of conservatives have jumped ship. I think you can pinpoint me as jumping during the Terry Schiavo fiasco.

What's lame is you acting like they're the same. The Republicans hold all the power. Their bills are what gets voted on. The Democrats aren't even allowed to put bills up for a vote these days. The entire fedgov agenda you are seeing is a direct result of Republican leadership in all 3 branches of government. The democrats have to vote on these issues, because that is what the republican majority is choosing to work on.

The democrats have 2 people talking down on video games. 2. And those 2 people are barely considered democrats by real democrats.

The republicans, as an entire party, are making gay marriage, and Mexican illegal immigration THE issues of this election year.

When gas prices are at an all time high, the stock market is going towards unstable ground, a war in Iraq that IS a quagmire, and the threat of terrorism, the GOP thinks wedge issues are what their time in government should be spent on.

Frankly I don't see why "conservatives" have stuck with them as long as they have. The republicans in charge, are ANYTHING but conservative. They have overseen the largest expansion of the government in over 100 years.

The republicans hold all the committees, they control all the power, and what are they choosing to spend their time on?

Terry Shaivo, gay marriage, steroids in baseball, Mexican illegal immigration (if you're coming in from Canada, it's ok to them), and tax breaks for the mega-rich.

[balamoor]

Apology Accepted ;)


Okay if you consider me basically calling your Knee jerk rant an Apology ..so be it :cool: