Posted on 12/23/2007 4:30:02 PM PST by steve-b
Last week, GamePolitics reported on Common Sense Media's survey of the 2008 presidential candidates and where they stand on media issues, including those related to video games.
While the initial response from candidates was somewhat sparse (only John Edwards, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Bill Richardson replied in time for CSM's release deadline), Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, has now weighed in.
Here is CSM's question on the topic of video game legislation, posed to Clinton and other responding candidates:
To date, nearly 10 states have considered legislation to keep violent video games out of kids' hands. Would you support this type of legislation at the federal level? What other strategies would you support to keep the video game industry and other media companies from marketing and selling inappropriate content to children?Here is Sen. Clinton's response:
When I introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act [FEPA] two years ago, I did so because I felt that video game content was getting increasingly violent and sexually explicit, yet young people were able to purchase these games with relative ease while their parents were struggling to keep up with being informed about the content.Sen. Clinton describes what FEPA would have mandated, had it passed:
On-site store managers would be subject to a fine of $1,000 or 100 hours of community service for the first offense and $5,000 or 500 hours of community service for each subsequent offense.The bill would also require an annual, independent analysis of game ratings and require the FTC to conduct an investigation to determine whether hidden sexual content like what was in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is a pervasive problem and to take appropriate action…
(Excerpt) Read more at gamepolitics.com ...
Whadda ya wanta hear? I’ll tell it to you. Vapid, thy name is Hillary.
This chick is nuts.
Wait, what? A disgruntled employee can sell a videogame to random kid and the game-store manager gets pegged with a heavy fine and community service? Clearly Shrilly doesn’t brush elbows with many Gamestop managers.
Just a casual observation, but kids usually get the money for these games from their parents, transportation to the video store from their parents, and play the games on a tv inside same said parents' houses. If a parent was that concerned, he/she'd be snatching the games out of the play stations and not carting junior back down to the video store any time soon. Never mind that computer that the parents bought and hooked up to the internet has a vast amount of info on any future purchase of games if those parents cared to look it up.
Liberals in a nutshell. You're too dumb to keep informed about your kids, so we'll do it for you. I know damn well what video games my kids play. Halo 3 and Call of Duty are violent, full of gore and weapons, and awesome. Beats Pong any day. I strongly recommend them to any parents with teenage boys.
Hillary would favor anything that allows the government to control more of everyone’s life.
Isn't there a law that says... more or less... Congress shall make NO law that interferes with commerce.
So why the heck do they continue to get away with this BS?
And wouldn't a law against video game writers and distributors be against their First Amendment rights to Free Speech? Wouldn't they be protected like the Hildabeast's filthy movie maker pals?
When Berzerks are outlawed, only outlaws will have Berzerks.
Ping.
Nanny Hillary at her finest.
From now on, joysticks can only go hard to the left.
I don't have a clue what the game is but I've been there a few times.
The payoff in keeping an open dialogue about games and the influence of violence is actually two-fold:
1. My sons have always held a high interest (like their dad) in history and particularly the wars America has participated in and now know more about our history than most high school and indeed college students. This interest was at the very least helped to be cultivated by the WW2 games that they play (along with watching the History Channel with dad).
2. It helps them learn to screen them for themselves. The other day I was asking my son about the game Gears of War because several people I talked to said it was very good. I was trying to gauge his interest as a possible present. He told me his friend has it and that it has way too much gore in it, so he didn't want it (insert proud dad feeling here). How are they to learn what to accept or decline if Big Brother is always making the decision for them? They will end up mindless minions of the state (which is probably the end goal anyway).
Bottom line: Government Intrusion over Parental Discretion is almost ALWAYS a losing proposition
I would too if I weren't so uncoordinated with these new fangled controllers. I think in my day we used rocks and sticks for video game controllers lol.
Add this to her wanting to control talk radio and telling me she wanted to take things from me for the common good.
Is anybody awake?
I agree about Gears of War. My son came home from his mom’s with it. I vetoed it immediately. Make sure (I’m sure you will) to get the Xbox Live with the 360. They’ll love it. But I also screen that. Bottom line: Involved parents don’t need government ‘crats involved with this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.