Obama: “But if the industry fails to act, then my administration would.”
Richardson: “I would consider this legislation.”
Edwards: “If the industry does not continue to make progress in keeping video games with intense violent and adult content away from children, we will need to consider further steps.”
Clinton: [After long discussion of her support for the Family Entertainment Protection Act] “When I am president, I will work to protect children from inappropriate video game content.”
Seriously, is this the first time you’ve ever read a political transcript?
… etc.
They all say that.
Etc. I’m too tired and bored to keep making this point, but they all say it. Get your panties in a bunch about something else.
Oh good someone else already listed more.
Even Mike Gravel!
When I am president, I will open up all secret files relating to the Iraq war and expose all officials who lied to the public in promoting it. (That’s right, Dick, your files too.)
Okay… let’s talk about the regulation then :)
Well, I hope she’s made president, soon. Little timmy must be saved from Grand Theft Auto 4!!
I’m starting to think gamers are libertarians for the same reason gun owners are Republicans. Whatever it takes to make sure the grownups don’t take our lead-lined toys away.
That said, there are no conclusive studies or collections of studies that show gaming causes violence to a larger degree than other media and ultimately the Democrats tend to be more responsive to logic than Republicans (as we’ve seen demonstrated with painful clarity over the past seven years). Sure, they pick on games and gamers - but why? Because it’s the Republican Party pounding on family values over and over and over again. This is a low hanging fruit. When we gamers can’t even persuasively argue there’s any artistic or social merit in games, and some of us protectively hammer away at that point, how can we turn around and preach 1st Amendment?
Exactly what are our games contributing to the marketplace of ideas? And before you go there, I do think the same applies to Hustler. The cases they won, and rightly so, were over specific and narrow incidents that did have broader merit.
So Democrats, of course, are going to go after us. I think that’s because they assume we’re young and not particularly politically aware. Easy targets. But ask any Republican candidate the same question and, with the exception of Ron Paul (possibly), you’re going to get the same answer with added pomposity, fire and brimstone.
Democrats say this a lot, that guns are just expensive toys, and I’m sure they are for plenty of people, but I don’t think that’s why Republicans in general are so passionate on the 2nd amendment.
I’m pretty sure it us unless they really believe they’re going to need to overthrow the Federal Goverment sometime soon. But let’s not litigate the 2nd Amendment in this thread. Been done in other threads and, as with the religion thing, nobody is going to walk away happy or changed.
Yeah, those are the only two reasons to own a gun. For fun, or to overthrow the government. There’s no more to be said there, agreed. PS, Jesus is your savor and you’re going to hell for not agreeing you heathen, but LET’S NOT TALK ABOUT THAT, OKAY?
You’re going to be put in a real awkward position if the Republican candidate ends up being anyone but Giuliani, huh?
Interestingly, the first hit for www.google.com/search?q=when+i+am+president is www.president.am, the website for the president of America.
When did I say I was supporting ANY republican candidate?
OH YOU’RE SO COY.
So what exactly is your point here? That Democrats supporting video game legislation pandering to social conservatives and morons should get a pass because the party that has its grassroots composed of those elements would also say the same dumb things?
It’s not going to be a swing issue for me, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with calling them out on how wrong they are on that regardless of what Huckabee promised his latest congregation/rally.
As an aside, the real problem here is not the pandering of the candidates. The real problem here is the apparent inability/lack of desire of the industry to develop a serious special interest group capable of persuading and bribing their way into a dominantly liberal (in the classical sense) position on the issue. That suggests to me that my interest in seeing mature content in videogames, whether expressed constructively or not, does not have the momentum that I wish it did.
If that’s not the case, I’d love to see the industry groups stop pussyfooting around with Jack Thompson and other loudmouths and sit down and read the NRA/AARP/RIAA playbook.
When we gamers can’t even persuasively argue there’s any artistic or social merit in games, and some of us protectively hammer away at that point, how can we turn around and preach 1st Amendment?
I’m not aware of any artistic or social merit in pornography, but haven’t there been some successes getting 1st Amendment protection for that?
Restrictions on freedom of speech are generally only constitutional within “reasonable” constraints of time, manner, and place. That is, as opposed to content per se. The general rule set can be reduced in instances where obscenity (as a legal term it is in a constantly battled set war with mere indecency, and is much narrower than most people would think) can be established, which as of the Miller case has been mostly constrained as a local standards issue (that’s where the artistic/scientific test comes from).
None of which applies to 99% of the videogames which people hyperventilate about, which is why it is particularly irritating to see the Miller test being invoked left and right when it is only useful for badly reasoned hyperbole. Theoretical possible mind warping is not a standard for obscenity, and it’s not a good standard for onerous legislation.
What’s really at stake in this matter is the brazen attempt to make mature video games less marketable through legal hindrances, and therefore intimidate companies from pursuing such options regardless of their motives. It’s not just about the children, and it’s not just going after them.
There have been but the decisions were narrowly written, if I’m recalling correctly. Which I might not be.
I was trying to make a few points actually:
If gamers take awesome pride in games having no worthwhile content aside from amusement then the idea of them contributing to the marketplace of ideas, that thing the 1st Amendment is really there to protect, seems moot to me. Of course, ideally, I’d like to see more games designed with higher ambitions than simply moving boxes. Then we’ll have something we can show and tell when we’re sitting in front of a Congressional panel.
Another point is that it cracks me up seeing people getting all huffy about Democrats, and only Democrats, when it comes to proposed (or merely threatened) videogame legislation. It’s nutbags like Falwell that got this whole ball rolling, in contemporary politics, with attacks on all popular culture and the Republicans have never slacked off once since. I guess because they’re against so many different things they disapprove of, morally and profoundly, it all tends to blur together.
What I’d actually like to see are some studies that tell us once and for all, what is, or isn’t, going on here. Until that’s done all of this really is so much bloviating from all sides. If real harm’s being done then regulation ain’t all that nutty as much as it might be unfashionable to say so. If not, then fine. The Democrats will at least probably shut up about it. Republicans answer to a higher, or at least different, authority than observable reality if the last seven years are any litmus test.
That’s a really terrible definition of what the first amendment is for. You have basically created an arbitrary “worthwhile content” standard for all media, not just that which is in flagrant violation of an obscenity standard, which is a local matter and a very specific one that a videogame is unlikely to cross.
Its an invitation to forcing the tastes of the majority or, potentially worse, just a heavily invested minority on the general public, and it flies in the face of the intent behind the first amendment imo. I’m surprised to see you say that kind of thing, period, but moreso in the context of a supposed defense of videogames.
Another point is that it cracks me up seeing people getting all huffy about Democrats, and only Democrats, when it comes to proposed (or merely threatened) videogame legislation. It’s nutbags like Falwell that got this whole ball rolling, in contemporary politics, with attacks on all popular culture and the Republicans have never slacked off once since. I guess because they’re against so many different things they disapprove of, morally and profoundly, it all tends to blur together.
Well, I for one get “huffy” about it because voting for a Falwell or a Falwell-soundalike was never a possibility for me, whereas voting for Hillary is. I don’t care if others are worse about it, I care when the candidates I want to consider for my vote take the issue and make a complete mess of it. Set aside the vote issue, and it bothers me when candidates do a simple cost benefit analysis on stupid-driven policy movements like this one and decide to check some boxes in the SAVE OUR CHILDREN hysteria column at the expense of what they regard as an unimportant demographic.
It’s an unfortunate turn, because it leaves you with the option that either the candidates in question are even less principled than you’d be willing to allow for, or that they are stupid enough to believe the hype. Neither is a happy outcome, especially at the possible expense of one of my favorite pastimes.
What I’d actually like to see are some studies that tell us once and for all, what is, or isn’t, going on here. Until that’s done all of this really is so much bloviating from all sides. If real harm’s being done then regulation ain’t all that nutty as much as it might be unfashionable to say so. If not, then fine. The Democrats will at least probably shut up about it. Republicans answer to a higher, or at least different authority, than observable reality if the last seven years are any litmus test.
No, they won’t. No one will shut up about so long as abdicating responsibility for your children is a marketable policy issue. The current state of the issue in legislation is obviously not guided by any sort of scientific interest…why on earth do you think an inherently populist and demagogue-friendly issue like this one would evolve so rationally all of a sudden?
Because they have before. The media and law enforcement didn’t get off tabletop RPing’s back until scientific studies came out that showed there was no harm done. That was spread around both by GAMA and player groups. Nobody’s seriously come after tabletop RPGs since.
And don’t be so coy about the first amendment. Yes, you can point out the legalese parsing but the reality behind it is that free speech is healthy for a society because it contributes to political and cultural discourse. The principle is the more ideas that are out there the better we can sift through them. The alternative, censorship, is generally worse. But if most of what’s out there, in terms of popular games, is just so much mental confection with some really nasty undertones - who’s going to take it seriously?
Even porn takes forms more established media feel a need to protect because legislation that limits it could, potentially, come around to bite them too. Amicus brief time. But video games? Those puppies are on their own. Just toys for teenage kids. I’d say that’s an incorrect impression, based on every study out there, but it’s certainly the one the industry seems to present. Boobies, firearms and pretty graphics. Just like FOX news.