Page 1 of 6

Hillary Clinton and video game regulation

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 3:06 pm
by remagi
Here is her stance, clarified in detail.

Her proposed legislation (which she still supports) considered fines of the following for sale of an adult oriented (there are no specifics as to what is "adult"):

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.


Note that in the state of California, where I live, the penalty for sale of alchohol to a minor on the part of the store operator is:

Sale to minors: maximum penalty of $250 and/or 24-32 hours Community Service


So the accepted penalty for the sale of a known, proven neuro toxin to minors is trivial compared to the sale of interactive content that has never, after extensive studies, been shown to exhibit a positive correlation between violence in content to violence in behavior.

FYI I am not a republican; I reject both parties as pathetic attempts at religion under the pretense of political ideology. I believe there should be a no party system with candidates chosen based on their belief and support in issues. This issue in particular I believe strongly in, that individuals should be left to decide for themselves, that books, games, movies, poems, or any form of human expression should not be idly censored "for the children", and that one of the reasons we are losing our ability to see from right from wrong in a cultural and social sense is we have surrended control of the concepts to the government.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right that should be protected at all costs. For this reason alone, if you are considering supporting Senator Clinton, I urge you to reconsider. There are many issues she and I agree on, but this is one I cannot stomach in an elected official. I am in control of my moral destiny and that of my children, not a politician.

-Remagi

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 3:19 pm
by Fydax
To summerize all those fancy words = Hilary hates gamers, and is a n00b!

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 7:52 pm
by Doomsayer
Remagi write to your local representative and let them know how you feel.

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:17 pm
by Prybutok
It would be better to write to Hilary Clinton herself and try to get her to see reason.

As for me, I am voting Chris Dodd if he is still running when the primaries come to California. Of course, I'll vote for Hilary over *any* of the republican candidates if she takes the democratic nomination.

Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:49 am
by Fydax
I'm going to choose the lesser of two weavils and move to New Zealand.

Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:44 pm
by Prybutok
Fuck that! I love America and will fight to keep power hungry politicians from changing it into a theocracy or a totalitarian state.

Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:00 pm
by Mckaime
rofl, you guys are into politics

Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:44 pm
by Prybutok
Hell yeah I'm into politics. The last 7 years have changed me from a non-partisan centrist into a progressive liberal.

Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:02 pm
by Noteworthy
i'm jumping on fyd's boat. moving out of the country ftw.

Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 7:50 am
by Kommisar
Legislation like that has been tried in a number of states already (including California). The laws have all been shot down in court as unconstitutional, largely due to the vague nature of what "adult content" means.

Also, there is legal precident behind the current "self-enforcement" policy that video game producers, distributors, and retailers go by... the movie industry. It's a common misconception that the movie ratings system is enforcable by law, but it isn't. A theater chosing to deny minors the ability to see an 'R' rated movie without a parent or guardian is only enforced by the MPAA.

There's a really good website for following legislation and media coverage of video games:

http://gamepolitics.com/

Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:58 am
by remagi
Legislation like that has been tried in a number of states already (including California). The laws have all been shot down in court as unconstitutional, largely due to the vague nature of what "adult content" means.


That's true Kommi, but it often takes the Supreme Court to rule on acts that have presidential backing and authority, and our current government, and its wild glee in abrogating various freedoms by act of law (Patriot Act anyone?) is taking over a decade to rectify by court action.

Not to mention there is little evidence the current Supreme Court is going to stand strong on personal freedoms, especially when it comes to "for the children" and religious mores are involved.

-Remagi

Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:03 pm
by Rathic
Prybutok wrote:It would be better to write to Hilary Clinton herself and try to get her to see reason.

As for me, I am voting Chris Dodd if he is still running when the primaries come to California. Of course, I'll vote for Hilary over *any* of the republican candidates if she takes the democratic nomination.


im sorry for you pry.

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:50 am
by gluttonie
Prybutok wrote:I'll vote for Hilary over *any* of the republican candidates if she takes the democratic nomination.


Would you voting for her just because they are on the opposite party or do you actually find her campaign and values to be something you want in your leader?

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:04 am
by Adrienna
I'll be voting for Barack Obama in the upcoming California Primary in February.

Would you voting for her just because they are on the opposite party or do you actually find her campaign and values to be something you want in your leader?


Neither. I agree with Pry, and if it was between her and any of the Republicans, then I would vote for Clinton too. The party label isn't an issue. I love Arnold, and he's a Republican. If they ever amended the Constitution, then I was definitely vote for him. It's not that Clinton's campaign and ideals are so great either, but it's better in my opinion considering the alternatives. Most of the GOP candidates are pro-war, anti-abortion, oppose sensible immigration legislation, and love to spend our tax dollars on the military industrial complex. THAT'S why I would vote for Clinton if I had no other choice than a Republican. Guiliani is the only GOP candidate that I can half way stand, so I might consider voting for him.

It's not about the party, it's about the issues. Most Americans are Moderates, but most candidates are not. It's all about deciding which issues are most important to you. Social Liberal, Fiscal Conservative anyone? I think Bill may have been the last.

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:23 am
by Demonikus
Even the FBI did an extensive study, THE FBI. That proved there was no violence portrayed by kids after playing very mature and graphic games.... but of course America never listens to scientific research. ths same thing happened in ww2 when we put the japanese into concentration camps. The Munsen report proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that no Japanese that was a US citizen was even thinking of going against the U.S. , but of course that never "existed".... heads out of the ass America, blame the parents...