Skip to comments.Parent Group: Industry Looks to "Buy" Clout
Posted on 01/22/2008 1:54:40 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
"The Parents Television Council has berated the Entertainment Software Association and the videogames industry at large for trying to "buy influence in Congress."
The New York Times recently reported that a new political action committee formed by the ESA would soon be making donations to politicians who support the videogames industry. The PTC denounced the ESA's plans in a statement this week.
The videogame industry continues to fight meaningful accountability for selling inappropriate material to children. The industry has been exposed repeatedly for its reprehensible behavior and now they are looking for ways to buy friends in the government, said PTC President Tim Winter (pictured).
Let me be clear of our intentions: Any public servant who cashes a check from the videogame industry will be exposed by the PTC as taking a stand against families, and his or her actions will be communicated to constituents in his or her congressional district."
Winter went on to accuse the Entertainment Software Rating Board of failing to "prevent companies like Rockstar Games from subjecting millions of children to sexually graphic material as they did with Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas."
(Excerpt) Read more at next-gen.biz ...
With many of the current lobbies crying to regulate the video game industry, it's only fair that the video game industry has its voice to protect itself.
Cry me a river... Nobody’s complaining about R-rated movie tickets being sold to kids, and the age limits for an M-rated video game are basically the same - nobody under 17 is supposed to get it without parental approval, although the standards for video games are stricter. For example, content-wise a M-rated game is closer to a PG-13 movie while an AO-rated game (same restrictions as NC-17 movie) would usually only receive an R rating.
Also, if a hidden scene in GTA San Andreas is exposing their children to ‘objectionable material’, they have a weak argument. First of all, the Grand theft Auto series is filled with objectionable stuff, mostly committing any kind of felony the player can think of (literally), so why is the parent exposing their kid to this game in the first place? Second of all, the ‘objectionable content’ in this specific game (an explicit hidden scene) is so well buried, a child would have to not only be looking for it but learn a little hacking in the process, and if your child is hacking video games in order to find explicit material, I think there’s some other problems.
Sounds to me like what the ESA is trying to “buy” is protection from uptight, self-righteous parents who’d rather make the government raise their children than do it themselves.
I think I’m gonna go play some Call of Duty 4 on their behalf.
Besides, it came out rated M and these nanny staters keep screaming about "the children."
There is an important distinction between a moraled Libertarianism and an amoral Libertineism.
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
John Adams (1735 - 1826)