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 ...
Hillary thinks that obesity will be curtailed if video games are labeled for violence and sexual content.....hah! what a joke.
He also mentioned an interest in Assassin’s Creed but I’m not too sure about that one. Killing aliens and historical bad guys is one thing but randomly going around assassinating people for your own gain is another.
All else aside, why is this a federal issue? Geez, it’s hard to be governed by your own state and then also by a federal nanny-state.
Is the Shrill also going to ban people from having characters from violent video games as their screen names in an online forum?
And yet, Grand Theft Auto IV will continue to be relentlessly far left. And, it’ll still be a fantastic game in spite of that.
The Video Game Makers apparently have not been sending enough bribes,... oops I mean Campaign Contributions to the Political Establishment. That Hildabeast Train Keeps Running by Burning Cash Money.
So would many on here, unfortunately.
Agreed. Fantasy based violence is more like a road runner cartoon (with frags) but I don't let the kids (nor myself) play the reality based "Hitman" or GTA. Heck, during their early teen years my sons and I wore out a few keyboards playing multi-player Quake and Unreal Tournament on the home network.
Should be obvious. The system is broken, running open-loop, out of control. Train-wreck --or totalitarianism-- ahead.
I think I put more stock in the plotline of the game more than anything else. For example, in Halo you are battling an evil alien race for the survival of mankind, which is a non-selfish (unlike GTA) aim. Likewise in Star Wars games you are battling the evil Sith. I try to steer away from games the plotlines of which are entirely selfish. That’s why I highly encourage WW2 games such as Call to Duty and Medal of Honor.
It sure appears that way.
Both parties want it that way.
This is old news. She-who-must-not-be-named was one of the biggest loudmouths during the “Hot Coffee” controversy of Grand Theft Auto III: San Andreas.
I hope she spills the “Hot Coffee” on her...nevermind, don’t want a ban at Christmas time.
BINGO!...We have a winner!!!....and in a nut shell to boot...
That’s about her speed.
And yet let’s encourage state teaching of the joys of anal love to 5 year olds at school.
Let me see, we need to revoke the Patriot Act to assure the privacy and first amendment rights of terrorists, but we must regulate the video games for our children because our parents aren’t doing a good enough job. Did she say that? I don’t recall. I get confused about what she says from one day to the next. Maybe this will explain why I’m like that:
I'm fairly sure I could predict how Mike Huckabee would answer this question.
I could too. I don’t want nanny-statism from either side.
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.