Clinton Submits Bill To Prevent Sale of Adult Games to Minors

[bean19]

Gamespot (www.gamespot.com) has an article (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6141410.html) that states that Senator Hillary Clinton has submitted a bill to Congress that if passed would fine video game store managers for the sale of games rated Mature, Adult Only, or Ratings Pending by the ESRB to minors. The bill is made less scary to video game store managers who can only control their employees to a certain degree, by allowing them to escape prosecution if they can show that their store has "a system in place to display and enforce" the ratings system.

Additonally, the bill calls for an independent annual analysis of the ESRB's rating system by the Federal Trade Commission.

Store managers would be fined up to $1,000 or 100 hours of community service for a first offense, and $5,000 or 500 hours of community service for each subsequent offense. Retailers can escape such fines if they were shown identification they believed to be valid or if their stores "have a system in place to display and enforce" the ratings system.

Beyond levying fines for retailers ignoring the ratings system, the bill would also require an independent annual analysis of the ratings system, and would expand the powers and responsibilities of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Clinton's legislation calls for the FTC to conduct an investigation into the prevalence of embedded inappropriate material not reflected in a game's rating (like the sex minigame in the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Hot Coffee scandal). The bill would also require the FTC to accept consumer complaints about misleading or deceptive game ratings, and authorizes the commission to conduct an annual secret shopper audit of retailers to make sure they're playing by the new rules.

In her statement on the new bill, Clinton mentions that similar bills in Illinois, Michigan, and California have all been signed into law. She did not mention that the Illinois laws have been declared unconstitutional by a District Court judge, or that another District Court judge ordered the Michigan law temporarily blocked, saying it is "unlikely to survive strict scrutiny." One important distinction between the laws is that the Illinois, Michigan, and California laws ban the sale of violent games to children using their own definitions of "violent games," while Clinton's bill refers instead to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board's ratings system to determine what is and isn't appropriate for children.
Any constitutional lawyers able to shed some light on whether or not having a more clear definition (one provided by the ESRB) of what constitutes a "violent game" will allow this law to pass judicial review?

[MaiXu]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ... didn't a bunch of state laws just get shot down for being unconstitutional on these very same grounds? Violating free speech or some such?

[MosBen]

Many of these sorts of laws have been struck down on "void for vagueness" grounds, which just means that the bill prohibited the sale of "violent" games but provided no helpful means of determining exactly which games were and were not prohibited. Using the ESRB ratings system probably eliminates that problem. Whether it will get struck down on 1st Amendment grounds is another matter entirely. Given the makeups of the courts these days, particularly the Supreme Court, I don't think it's out of the question that it would be upheld.

[see colon]

what door at the clinton estate do i drop my daughter off at, and what door do i pick her up at when she turns 18?

[JazGalaxy]

The constitution holds no real sway in matters such as these because it was simply not written to take them into account. Had the authors of the document been faced with the concept of whether or not children should be able to engage in virtual wholesale murder, they probably would have managed to get out "but why aren't they... helping... in the field...." before their brains had one collective anuerism and they all died.

[Thenetcase]

Store managers would be fined up to $1,000 or 100 hours of community service for a first offense, and $5,000 or 500 hours of community service for each subsequent offense.

Wait... $1000 or 100 hours of comm. service? I'll take the $1000 thank you.

I don't think the constitution has a "Gaming section". Benjamin Franklin apparently forgot to add that part when he travelled back in time or else Thomas Jefferson over ruled him saying that they didn't know about the existance of any such "games".

;)

-TNC-

[Lunar Blue]

A bill to prevent sale of adult games to minors.. how original.

[see colon]

at 13 you can read "the outsiders". in fact, it's required by many schools. the book is great for young aspiring felons. it tells them they should run away if they kill someone, and gives them pretty decent ideas for disguise (change your hair color using peroxide). you can also play SOCOM 2, America's Army, and Ghost Recon. these military simulators have realistic situations that are wholesome to a childs development. they reward headshots and teach children valuable life lessons.

games like prince of persia: warrior within are evil. they feature an evil fantasy setting with eveil fantasy creatures that you can murder with your evil fantasy sword. it's every young childs evil fantasy wet dream.

[EvilBob46]

I think it's been defined pretty well that a "violent" game is. Anything rated T/M/A by the ESRB me thinks, and probably shouldn't belong in the hands of 10-year olds unless the parents agree with the purchase, in which case they can buy it themselves. I don't support Washington Bureaucrats taking over the ESRB, but I don't see this huge constitutional issue with the law. Someone fill me in?

[UnderHero5]

I'm all for it. If this passes and these people's children play violent games and happen to do something bad, then there's no one to blame but the person who bought the game for the kid (ie: parents).

Wait... don't they already card for M rated games? I live in New York State and I've been carded on more than on occasion at my local WalMart... even though I'm 23 years old.... actually I think I was 22 last time they did it, they have been doing it for a couple years now.

Bah, who am I kidding, parents will never take the blame for anything. It's all societies fault that their children misbehave.

[AspectVoid]

I think it's been defined pretty well that a "violent" game is. Anything rated T/M/A by the ESRB me thinks, and probably shouldn't belong in the hands of 10-year olds unless the parents agree with the purchase, in which case they can buy it themselves. I don't support Washington Bureaucrats taking over the ESRB, but I don't see this huge constitutional issue with the law. Someone fill me in?

If I recall right, one of the state bills got shot down as violating the 1st amendment because it only punished video games rather then all forms of entertainment that are given to children and didn't include other self regulated medias such as movies, music, and TV shows. I think that's the only chance this law has at getting beaten.

[Klade]

Ok everyone, here's the skinny. This law doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing constitutional muster. And everyone involved already knows that, its just a big publicity thing so they can tell the voters "look I'm doing something about issues you care about."

Here's why this is unconstitutional. The constitution protects any person's right to free speech. And it doesn't lay down much crap about what is NOT speech. Meaning that pretty much any time you convey information to another person its protected speech. People have gone into court houses wearing jackets that say "FUCK the USA" and it was ruled to be protected speech. Pornography is one of the few exceptions to this rule and its always been listed as a special exception. Also words that incite someone to do an illegal act are an exception.

Both of those exceptions are being used to try and justify this bill. However there is no where near enough evidence to support the latter and the former is just not justified by the overwhelming industry standards now in place.

In order for the courts to say that video games are not protected speech (and thats what it would take) they would need to say they are on the same level as pornography (and I'm talking real porn not statue of David stuff) and or on the same level as inciting a riot or yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

Do you think that can be justified? I don't.

[Tohoya]

Everybody wins here. Democrats get to reach across the aisle to "family values" voters. Then it gets struck down by the court, they get to whinge about judicial activists, and gamers still get their games.

[DarkEternal]

Here's my spin on this whole thing. Video games are just the newest form of entertainment media, like movies were not too long ago. You know that someone is always going to be whining and complaining that this kind of thing corrupts today's youth. I say, better that they just get it over with now, get it out of their system so that they can move on to hating some other aspect of our culture.

[Bubby]

Any constitutional lawyers able to shed some light on whether or not having a more clear definition (one provided by the ESRB) of what constitutes a "violent game" will allow this law to pass judicial review?

Comedy gold.

[see colon]

Everybody wins here. Democrats get to reach across the aisle to "family values" voters. Then it gets struck down by the court, they get to whinge about judicial activists, and gamers still get their games.
i think it's more a case of "nobody wins". hilary clinton is effectivly stating that "M" rated games are harmful to children and should be treated like pornogrophy. that's a bold statement since many M rated games have content that's seen on television. hell, not too long ago a cable channel played scarface uncut (after 10pm IIRC). movies like saving private ryan are shown with much of the blood intact on TNT durring the daytime. and there's more sex in "daytime dramas" than there is in most M rated games.

in fact, there was more talk of drugs and sex in the news every day when her husband was president than any time i could think of. so much so that the words "monica" and "lewinski" can be used individually in referance to a sex act and people will know exactly what sex act you are talking about.

but somehow that's all OK. videogames are the devil of the 21st century. for the record, i don't think children should be playing M rated videogames. but i think parents should have the final say in what their children consume. taken at face value this law looks to do just that. but i feel there are alterier motives at work here. why would mrs clinton, who had no kind words to say about the ESRB in the past suddenly try to put into law a a bill that relys on it's ratings so heavily? it's a common belief that most retailers are already restricting the sale of M (and above) rated games to minors, and this does nothing to parrents that supply those games to children. the only party with anything to loose here is the ESRB. it's reputation is already tarnished by the hot coffee scandal. if the bill is shot down it'll likely be because "the ESRB isn't doing a good enough job". and if it passes, and another hot cofee-like scandal appears it'll likely result in government regulation and/or ratings of videogames because "it's the only way to enforce the law".

[Mason]

This is all hot air. As DLC Democrats (the right-wing of the party) have been losing popularity by sounding too much like Republicans, their response has been to keep moving to the right on social issues.

"Security moms" whose entire worlds are filtered through Katie Couric's eyes are the only people who take this remotely seriously. And to the detached millionaire pundits that guide our nation's discourse, a gruesome death in a video game and that of a soldier in Iraq seem to have equal weight.

I would be interested in seeing who votes for this outside of the DLC.

[abso]

I think the point that many of us gamers tend to miss while we argue over the constitutionality of such laws is that this is fostering discussion and awareness of an issue to the general public. Clinton may very well know that the law will be shot down either in Congress or the Courts. However, the very nature of announcing such a law means wide-scale media exposure. Parents, who should be the ones responsible, can no longer hide behind a wall of "Oh, I didn't know what my kid was playing in my own home."

While I agree with the premise of the bill, that young kids should not be playing violent games, I disagree with the manner in which it attempts to do so. The game industry, in its pursuit of graphics realism, has created this desire for realistic violence. What they need to consider is how to make a game that anyone would want to play, that doesn't involve realistic violence. Look at GTA. What is it about the gameplay of GTA that made it such a popular game? The fact that you could run around stealing cars is secondary to the fact that it was a wide open environment with TONS of stuff to do. Granted, the things to do were all violent in nature, but I challenge someone to make a game without violence that is as robust.

The original "gamers" are now in our late 20's-late 30's, and some are even older. We are adults and don't see anything wrong with being able to play whatever we want, and the video game industry sees this. However, they need to also be responsible and make high demand games for new gamers. Just because a game doesn't have blood, doesn't mean it automatically sucks.

[agentgray]

So the ESRB becomes a government agency now?

</sarcasm off>

[bean19]

The constitution holds no real sway in matters such as these because it was simply not written to take them into account. Had the authors of the document been faced with the concept of whether or not children should be able to engage in virtual wholesale murder, they probably would have managed to get out "but why aren't they... helping... in the field...." before their brains had one collective anuerism and they all died.

Or they could have said "Teen is 13+? Why aren't they married and worried and spending their time working?" Keep in mind that our culture has grown to be one of the worst about over-protecting and underpreparing our children.

But more likely they would have said that it was either a state issue or a family issue and not the government's pervue.

[bean19]

Btw. . . if this passes and is upheld by judicial review. I think the biggest effect we will see is that game stores will market Mature rated games sepeartely. We will see a Mature section and a Children's/Teen section in video game stores.

Well, maybe. . . more likely now that I ponder it is that they'll simply add code to their registers that ask for a birthdate on all games that have a rating of Mature. Then they'll teach all employees that not taking a birthdate correctly is a fireable offense. That's how they do it for movies, adult books, etc. This means that they can prepare a legal breif that shows exactly what they've done to prevent sale to minors. Fax that over to the DA's office as well as the paperwork showing that an employee was terminated for making a sell to a minor, and they would probably dismiss immediately.

[TheKeck]

Ok everyone, here's the skinny. This law doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing constitutional muster. And everyone involved already knows that, its just a big publicity thing so they can tell the voters "look I'm doing something about issues you care about."

Here's why this is unconstitutional. The constitution protects any person's right to free speech. And it doesn't lay down much crap about what is NOT speech. Meaning that pretty much any time you convey information to another person its protected speech. People have gone into court houses wearing jackets that say "FUCK the USA" and it was ruled to be protected speech. Pornography is one of the few exceptions to this rule and its always been listed as a special exception. Also words that incite someone to do an illegal act are an exception.

Both of those exceptions are being used to try and justify this bill. However there is no where near enough evidence to support the latter and the former is just not justified by the overwhelming industry standards now in place.

In order for the courts to say that video games are not protected speech (and thats what it would take) they would need to say they are on the same level as pornography (and I'm talking real porn not statue of David stuff) and or on the same level as inciting a riot or yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

Do you think that can be justified? I don't.

Yes, this is pretty much the understanding I had as well. These bills WERE being ruled unconstitutional. None of this "too vague" business.

[Heretic Machine]

You know what? Even if we -should- make laws prohibiting the sale of certain games to kids, it's still FAR too early to see that. Video games of this type are only a few years old, we have no idea about whether or not it has any effect at all (and I doubt that it does) and so we just need to get these conservatives to settle down and stop being so god-damned reactionary.

[MosBen]

Yes, the latest batch of laws like this were struck down on constitutional grounds, but several previous laws were struck down on vagueness grounds. Constitutional interpretation requires that courts avoid constitutional issues if they can resolve cases on other grounds. Several previous laws relating to game sales used the phrase "violent games" and did not define it, making them void for vagueness. I don't remember the content of the more recent cases, but they were indeed struck down on constitutional issues, but again, those were lower court cases and we'll see what happens when these cases work their way through the appeals process. Knowing the makeup of most of the circuit courts of appeals and the Supreme Court, I'm not 100% convinced that they will strike this law down.

[Beelzebud]

I'm a liberal Democrat, and I need to get this off my chest:

Fuck Hillary Clinton.

Her push towards the center is going to do one thing: Make people like me, and Republicans, hate her for being phoney.

That and I'm tired of America being ran by two Crime Families.

[The Letter 3]

Here's my spin on this whole thing. Video games are just the newest form of entertainment media, like movies were not too long ago. You know that someone is always going to be whining and complaining that this kind of thing corrupts today's youth. I say, better that they just get it over with now, get it out of their system so that they can move on to hating some other aspect of our culture.
I agree. This isn't the first time that the influential people of society have made irrational decisions about what is "corrupt." My favorite is back in the 1860's women started wearing "bloomers" which were basically pants. Yes, mainstream society thought that bloomers were the incarnation of the devil. Hell, at least a video game today can allow you to fight the devil!

[sTubbs]

I'm a liberal Democrat, and I need to get this off my chest:

Fuck Hillary Clinton.

Her push towards the center is going to do one thing: Make people like me, and Republicans, hate her for being phoney.

That and I'm tired of America being ran by two Crime Families.

Exactly. My American friends were saying the same thing about Kerry. They were all rooting for Dean, who should have won until the media fucked him over something fierce. Kerry was way to central for their liking, and further alienated them and everyone they knew.

[Mason]

Exactly. My American friends were saying the same thing about Kerry. They were all rooting for Dean, who should have won until the media fucked him over something fierce. Kerry was way to central for their liking, and further alienated them and everyone they knew.

America has no left. Our elections are sane right-of-center against batshit crazy far-right.

DLC Democrats are nobody's liberals. Lieberman is like the most hawkish supporter of the Iraq war, long after most centrist Republicans have come out generally against it, along with like 70% of the population. Hillary seems determined to keep sliding right until people like her.

Kerry was an okay centrist, with his wild ideas like "fiscal responsibility" and "don't kill social security". But on the war, he just assumed that a decorated vet would trump a kid who skipped out on his national guard free-ride, so he tried to say inoffensive things instead of channeling America's growing discontent with the lies and deaths. He miscalculated.

Regarding Dean, the problem is that you can't underestimate the culpability the media has in America's current messes. All of the lies and scandal that have become big news were known about years ago, back when they might've done some good (before the war or election). Hell, NYTimes just released an article on how Bush is authorizing possibly illegal spying on American citizens, an article they had written a year ago but not released because the White House asked them not to.

So the White House lied, and the media were stenographers for those lies, and when someone like Dean comes along and tries to make a big deal about it all, it isn't only the president with something to lose from it. News is a business, you have to protect your image or circulation will drop. The official storyline has to be "We were all deceived about the war until like 2005", and people who wised up to what was happening back in 02-03 are inconvenient obstacles to that storyline.

[outontheporch]

I think this could actually be a good thing. If minours weren't allowed to buy violent games, then it would get alot of people off our backs. It'd become like pornohraphy, or cigarettes, or alcohol, you know? It's not the video game's fault, it's who bought it for the kid. Finally some responsibility would be placed on parents, instead of scapegoating the video game industry.

I do think that they should start paying attention to the ERSB, though, instead of making up some fo their own standards regarding the definition of a violent game.

[outontheporch]

That and I'm tired of America being ran by two Crime Families.

Hey, that's a good one. That pretty much sums up why I'm politically apathetic.

[mister_slim]

I'm a liberal Democrat, and I need to get this off my chest:

Fuck Hillary Clinton.

Her push towards the center is going to do one thing: Make people like me, and Republicans, hate her for being phoney.

That and I'm tired of America being ran by two Crime Families.
I'm an American, and I'd like to say:

Fuck the Democratic and Republican parties, and all of the members of either party. Stop being fucking sheep.

[holycrapper]

as I understand it, this law is completely boned because a federal law cannot rely on the ratings of a private organization. Imagine if this concept were say, applied to cigarettes. The tobacco companies would rate everything [FE] For everyone, there are dozens of examples, simply put the only way they could expect to enforce any sort of law like this would be if they federalized a game ratings commitee, which i personally feel would be a massive waste of tax dollars we could be using to shoot children in nations poorer than us (and I'm a republican!).

[Crabby]

I object to the FTC oversight. 'Nuff said.

[pdeupree]

I'm not quite sure where this really plays into a free speech argument, since the question is not whether the games can be made, or whether they can be sold in stores. The question is who can buy the game that is being sold in stores.

I mean, if it was just a matter of the government controlling what we can hear, then I've got news for everyone. They've already been doing that for a LONG time. Every time a word is bleeped on the radio or TV, it is censorship and it is the government driving that effort through a system that is very similar to what they are talking about doing here (e.g. provide vague guidelines, the fine people when they break your interpretation of the rules).

All that being said, I'm not even that worried about that aspect of this bill. What annoys me is that just crafting this bill has already cost untold amounts of tax payer money, and if it is passed, then regulation, and this FTC investigation they are proposing will easily amount to millions of tax payer dollars. In the end, the results of the investigation will likely be the obvious, which is that the ESRB and most stores were already doing exactly what they are saying they should do. After that point, it will cost more untold millions to maintain a staff to "regulate", and they will either try to aggressively railroad retailers and find reasons to fine them, which hurts commerce, or they will sit on their asses with nobody to fine, which costs tax money.

[RevXwise]

My 2 cents on the ESRB: I used to agree with it but now it is just ridiculous. For example, I purchased Dungeon Siege 2 and Call of Duty 2. In Dungeon Siege 2 you wield melee weapons and such and use them to destroy completely made up fantasy monsters. This game was rated mature because there's a chance that these monsters can explode into some pixelated gibs... which come nowhere close to looking realistic at all. On the other hand, Call of Duty 2 allows you to shoot someone in the head up close, spewing blood out and leaving the victim screaming in agonizing pain. I think I forgot to mention that the graphics in Call of Duty 2 are very realistic and the game also takes place around real events. I don't get how exploding madeup fantasy monsters into little multicolored chunks is only suitable for mature audiences, yet shooting someone in the head pointblank as they let out blood curdling screams is more suited for the teens of our society.

[MosBen]

Government regulation of speech implicates the first amendment if it tends to have a "chilling effect" on people making that speech. The regulation will be upheld if it is supported by a legitimate purpose and is narrowly tailored to serve that purpose (that might not be the exact test, I'm a little fuzzy on my Constitutional Law now).

Protecting minors from lewd/plainly objectionable content has been upheld as a legitmate government purpose, hence restrictions on pornography and transmissions over public airwaves. Similarly, protection of minors from dangerous substances/items (guns, tobacco, alcohol) has been upheld. A court could conceivably find that restricting the sale of games to minors is a legitimate government purpose and then it would depend on how the law was written. Lots of laws, not just relating to speech issues, are voided on vagueness grounds before the constitutional merits are even reached, so that could kill the law. If it's not too vague it might not be narrowly tailored enough, that is, it could be written in such a way, but isn't, that it achieves the purpose of keeping the games out of kids' hands without impinging on speech rights quite so much.

As games get more advanced graphically and more explicit in conten I'm convinced that eventually we're going to see some kind of restriction held up. Is this that time? I don't know, but it's really only a matter of time. Does anyone think that there aren't a significant number of games out today that are at least as objectionable as Playboy? Now sure, our society treats sex and violence rather differently, but again, it's only a matter of time before the Supreme Courts holds that it's reasonable for a community to decide that they don't want their kids to be able to walk into a bookstore and buy a Playboy and it's reasonable for them to not want their kids to be able to walk into a game store and buy some super violent/sexy game.

[GunnyMo]

Goddamn, mother fucking she-male Clinton and her cunt of a partner Lieberman! Wtf are they punishing those of us in retail. IT IS THE GODDAMN PARENTS BUYING THESE FUCKING GAMES 95% OF THE TIME!! Christ! This stuff really pisses me off. We can do everything possible NOT to sell these games to minors at retail and all it will take to fine and community service a store manager in this bill is a parent to buy this game and then claim THEY NEVER DID. There IS NO PROTECTION for retailers here.

If they do this to video game retailers they HAVE to include movies and music in this. I will be first in line to march/call/talk/annoy on this bill. It has to be the worst piece of legislation I've ever read.

Sorry for the rant but goddamn does this kind of close minded, unresearched, completely irresponsible political ass kissing bakes my muffin.

[MosBen]

Maybe I'm wrong, but don't game stores have security cameras or something? I would think that would be a pretty good source of evidence if a parent ever tried to lie or something. And as to the percentage of the time adults are buying the game for kids, I'm sure it's as high or higher for alcohol, tobacco, and porn (though with porn it's probably more buying for self and the kids getting ahold of it). Even with that being the case sometimes it's important to make sure that clerks act responsibly. Sure, a good fake id can fool anyone, but that is addressed by the bill, so I don't see that being much of a problem. As far as I can tell, assuming there is some method to verify that the clerks followed the rule, like the security video, I don't see this punishing anyone but the stores that don't follow the clearly marked ratings system.

[pdeupree]

I don't think this bill says anything about a parent or other adult purchasing a game for a minor. It's only meant to "supervise" how retailers handle sales of mature rated games.

However, that being said, I imagine it wouldn't be long before they started throwing in laws similar to when an adult purchases alchohol for a minor, or they could try to categorize it as contributing to the corruption of a minor.

As I mentioned, however, at a bare minimum this bill has already punished the tax payers, and should it be passed it will continue to do so. That's my biggest problem. It's just another example of government waste of money.

[MosBen]

But, of course, anything the government, or anyone for that matter, does costs money, it's just a question of if what they're doing is important. Sales of games to minors isn't something I care deeply about, but other people do and I'm sure there are programs that I think are really important that other people see as wasteful. Reletive to lots of government expenditures, I'm sure this would account for a miniscule amount of the multi-trillion dollar budget. I certainly think there's fat in the budget, but there are far worse offenders than this.

[BenSkywalker]

America has no left. Our elections are sane right-of-center against batshit crazy far-right.

America has no right, not sure what you are talking about. Dubya explodes spending, reduces productivity and increasingly centralizes government- he is a solid left winger. Nothing he has done has been remotely right wing in terms of the political spectrum.

This law is another example of firmly left wing ideals. Centralization of control to a governing authority. The religious 'right' only votes Republican due to the abortion issue- they are overwhelmingly far left in terms of political thought.

As far as Iraq- the bloodiest wars in the last seventy years on a global basis were all started by liberals largely fighting against other liberals.

[MosBen]

Libertarianism has never really defined "The Right" in American politics, and certainly not for the last 50 years. While this current crop of Republicans may not be living up to the smaller government principles they talk about, social conservatism is most certainly part of the Right.

[bean19]

This law is another example of firmly left wing ideals. Centralization of control to a governing authority. The religious 'right' only votes Republican due to the abortion issue- they are overwhelmingly far left in terms of political thought..

Replace "thought" with "action" and you will be correct.

A lot of Republicans vote Republican because they believe in lowered taxes, fiscal responsibility, and smaller government. It's just that RECENT Republicans (and Reagan) campaign with these issues and then sell the store to lobbyists.

I don't think that what Republicans wanted when they voted for their Congressman and the President were tax cuts primarily for the uber wealthy (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm), an ever-increasing national deficit (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/), and big government (no link to article as the subject is fairly large, and I didn't feel like pulling up a bunch of pork barrel projects and Patriot Act stories. . . the only sites directly on the subject were by Libertarians and I don't have the time to investigate if they are just interested Libertarians or the wack-o batshit crazy insane Libertarians. . . but if you want to read about this, just google the individual topics that I mentioned and show the rise of larger government.)

Republicans aren't stupid for voting Republican. Those are some really good issues, and I agree with fiscal responsibility, lowering taxes (for middle and lower income), and smaller government. What is stupid is when you keep voting for people who lie to you and then rob the store.

I've thought about creating a political group called "Former Republicans" in my Republican dominated West Texas town to see if we couldn't get a Democrat or at least a not as twisted Republican elected. . . but some people are obstinate. . . and a lot of people vote Republican because they are anti-choice.

[pdeupree]

The main reason I, personally, think of this as a waste of tax payer money is because there are already two major systems in place that we have seen quite actively to solve the problem they are having. One is the current ratings system. For the most part, it works as long as parents pay attention (stores already do for the most part). The second is consumer "advocacy" groups such as the ones that hyped up the hot coffee mod, and other game situations. This isn't even just recent stuff. Anyone remember that Sim City offshoot a ways back that had the cheat code that would have a bunch of "gay" guys running around in speedos, or something of the sort? That caught a bunch of flak, and I believe they removed that stuff from further copies of the game (not that it sold enough to evoke more copies).

What this bill proposes should be happening I don't disagree with. Kids shouldn't be allowed to buy M rated games (just like they shouldn't be allowed to buy R rated movies, which currently they can do without stores batting an eye). If the developer includes content in the game which is "hidden", so they obviously know it was questionable enough that it couldn't be included in the game, then they should probably just remove the content.

However, as I mentioned above, ways already exist for these situations to be taken care of without Hillary, Joe, or the government really needing to spend money on the situation.

[Pumped'Up]

I'm 110% behind anyone or any bill or effort on restricting game sales to minors or those below the min age requirement.

Like nudie magazines, smokes and alcohol, kids under 17-19 should not be allowed to buy M rated games. Games today have come a damn long way from the days of the 16-bit era....and unfortunately so have cartoons on TV and comic books in the past 15-20 years.

[Mason]

America has no right, not sure what you are talking about. Dubya explodes spending, reduces productivity and increasingly centralizes government- he is a solid left winger. Nothing he has done has been remotely right wing in terms of the political spectrum.

This law is another example of firmly left wing ideals. Centralization of control to a governing authority. The religious 'right' only votes Republican due to the abortion issue- they are overwhelmingly far left in terms of political thought.

As far as Iraq- the bloodiest wars in the last seventy years on a global basis were all started by liberals largely fighting against other liberals.

Exploding spending on the military and corporate welfare is not leftist. The guy has cut social programs (as did Clinton, hmm) so I'm not sure you can call him a liberal.

Reducing productivity is just regular Republican stupidity, i.e. doing nothing that'd actually help the economy recover (gradual tax cuts over the next 10 years do nothing to immediately stimulate things). Centralizing government is more on the authoritarian/libertarian axis than left/right, but Nixon, Reagan, and Bush have put the Republicans way ahead in that category. I'll call for the head of any Democrat that uses the NSA to spy on American citizens without a warrent, too, but I'd wager we won't see that happen.

Bush is an economic and social regressive. End of story. Cutting social services and giving tax cuts to the rich increases the gap between the rich and everyone else, that's regressive. Trying to dismantle our social safety nets, that's really regressive. Catering to Christian conservatives on social issues is about as socially regressive as you can get.

I know, I know, everyone who thinks of themselves as a conservative is really a libertarian-conservative who loves freedom and puppies, and it is just an accident that they keep voting in authoritarian fools that are dismissive of the very rule of law. But after Lucy has yanked the football enough times, it is Charlie Brown who is to blame.

But to be fair, you're ahead of your time. All the talk radio shows will be similarly spouting the idea that Bush wasn't a real conservative in 2008. Or whenever he leaves office. I'd really like to hope that America is smart enough not to keep falling for that one.

[BenSkywalker]

A lot of Republicans vote Republican because they believe in lowered taxes, fiscal responsibility, and smaller government.

That is true, but that isn't the religious right. The economic conservatives support the advancement of the religious right's agenda as they are a large enough portion of the populace to make the rest of their political agenda a viable one.

Reducing productivity is just regular Republican stupidity, i.e. doing nothing that'd actually help the economy recover (gradual tax cuts over the next 10 years do nothing to immediately stimulate things).

Reagan's policy helped to explode productivity- the federal governments income more then doubled during the Reagan years while tax rates were reduced by a staggering amount. Not even during the .com boom was the Clinton administration able to replicate that. Reducing productivity has certainly been a big push for all of the heads of states since Reagan, H, Clinton and Dubya were all quite strong in that category.

Cutting social services and giving tax cuts to the rich increases the gap between the rich and everyone else, that's regressive.

That is radical left propaganda talking. The actual standard of living metric between the poorest and wealthiest people in this nation has been constantly shrinking for the last hundred years. It peaked during the FDR administration. Most of the poor people in this nation own at least one car and two TVs and despite extreme propaganda to the contrary even the poorest people can receive medical care by going to the emergency room. It may not be up to the quality levels of what the wealthy can obtain, but it is certainly better then what even the wealthy can obtain in third world countries. Obesity amongst the poorest sector of the population in this nation is quite high also- a good indicator that they are far from starving. Class warfare may play well with the ignorant masses but it has no place in an honest analysis of what needs to be done to move the country forward.

Trying to dismantle our social safety nets, that's really regressive.

I would say that would be extremely progressive. Welfare was one of the poorest ideas ever constructed by the liberals and it has been beyond a shadow of a doubt an abject failure in nearly every instance it has been used. They should have started a workfare program from day one and had people in need training to gain skills by working on public funded projects. The idea of giving the poor 'just enough' to survive is disgusting mainly to them. Five trillion dollars plus down the drain in the last thirty years or so with no change in the poverty line(although the standard of living for those in poverty has improved constantly). We are closing in on a century of having a welfare project in place with nigh no progress made. I see welfare as a very real attempt by the left to keep people as poor as possible for as long as possible.

Then we get in to Social Security- what a joke that is. The entire idea of Social Security should have been privatized accounts from day one. Put those that were too old at the inception of the program on to a senior well being program and then rolled all donations directly into a privatized account for each individual. Fluctuating birth rates has been known about for centuries- it is certainly nothing new and was easily seen. Now the liberals have constructed an enormous trap that Gen X and Gen Y are going to have to fix in the tunes of trillions of dollars simpy due to the extreme ignorance of the left wing and their inability to handle any economic matters with the slightest bit of common sense.

I know, I know, everyone who thinks of themselves as a conservative is really a libertarian-conservative who loves freedom and puppies, and it is just an accident that they keep voting in authoritarian fools that are dismissive of the very rule of law.

I voted against H Bush and I voted against W Bush- that doesn't mean I voted for Dukakis, Gore or Kerry, but the Libertarian party in my state is actually quite strong relatively speaking(New Hampshire).

[bradlay]

Everybody wins here. Democrats get to reach across the aisle to "family values" voters. Then it gets struck down by the court, they get to whinge about judicial activists, and gamers still get their games.

Don't say Democrats. I'm a democrat and I think this is total rubbish.

[Roc Ingersol]

Dear Out-of-touch political hacks in Washington:

Fuck You.

Sincerely,
Your Unfortunately Out-Voted Consituent

[see colon]

Obesity amongst the poorest sector of the population in this nation is quite high also- a good indicator that they are far from starving.
now there's something we should be addressing. quality of life will be more impacted by poor diet choices (or lack of availability to alow good choices) than it ever will be by violent entertainment.