Campaign Commercial Touts Hillary Clinton's Work on Video Game Issues

We are missing the point if we are arguing that the Government shouldn't intervene when it comes to children. It is already a strong social understanding that the Government does bear some responsibility when it comes to children's upbringing - such as removing them from a dangerous situation when their parents will not. We can't aruge on that ground if we hope to gain any ground.

Instead, we should be looking inward, at the things that give Mrs. Clinton her talking points. All are things that we, the gamers, are in a position to do something about before the Government does.

Our problem should be with stores that declare policies such as, "We will uphold the voluntary ratings system and not sell M-rated games to minors without parental consent," and then turn around and sell M-rated games to minors without parental consent.

Our problem should be with those who deride American citizens for protesting such retailers.

Our problem should be with those who would act as if retailers have an obligation to pre-sell anything, much less to stock and sell a particular product.

Our problem should be with people who have such strong opinions shared online but will not share their opinions with politicians in a thought-provoking but non-hostile way (in this case in particular, the "angry letter" response works against us).

Our problem should be with any misprepresentation within the gaming community, whether that be retailers that break their stated policy or game developers that include inappropriate things hidden in the games (whether or not they were included accidentally or they were never intended to be publicly used).

The truth is, we've done a lousy job within the community of self-regulating (meaning us gamers haven't united against the industry when the situation called for it). Why are we so shocked that people outside of the gaming community are now trying to take control of it?

Disgusting, but to be expected. I wonder if she's picked her campaign slogan yet? I heartily suggest she choose her mots juste from a 2004 fundraiser. It was in regards to -money- but applies just as well to her attitudes on video game. I can see it now:

CLINTON '08: "We're Going to Take Things Away From You on Behalf of the Common Good"

Well Dennis, thinking about your piece on political candidates and video game positions now, I would say that if she wants to make this more than a fringe issue then she should be judged on it appropriately. What voters will have to remember, even if they don't care about video games, is that if she is willing to back flimsy correlative evidence so fervently in order to appear actively helping people, what WONT she be willing to do? We've already seen Bush pass laws that infringe on people's rights in the interests of 'security' (and actually a couple of these allow for impeachment, but don't expect to hear much about that), so is this how she wants to be seen as a Democrat??

Its a fundemental lack of judgment, and quite possibly a sign of things to come. I personally would be viewing this issue as an insight into her character should she be voted in during 2008.

I'm impressed. I haven't seen anyone else so blatantly admit to trying to destroy the first amendment.

For everyone who feels strongly about this, I would remind you we live in a democracy. Use the link in my name to send your thoughts (PLEASE be sure to proofread first!), and urge all your gamer friends (or anyone concerned about the First Amendment implications of Sen. Clinton's anti-game crusade) to do the same, even if you aren't a citizen of New York (or even the U.S.).

We have to let them know that this sort of thing is unacceptable.

I don't think anyone should just attakc the democrats as a whole. Just the ones who believe its okay to do what Bush has done with civil liberties and take it one step further i.e. H. Clinton

"Shielding" chidren? WTF happened to sitting down with your kids while they're playing Halo 2 (or watching Rambo, Terminator, or Saw) and telling them that it's not cool to do that stuff in real life? Why do we need to "shield" them?

Okay, first off, Hillary is not a virtual shoo-in for President. People have been speculating on this race since BEFORE the 2004 Election was over. Can we PLEASE get through 2006 before we start the 2008 bullshit? We are about 15 months from any primary decisions being made. Granted we still have New Hampshire and Iowa going first (for reasons passing understanding), but a lot can happen in a year. Go back to immediate post-2000 and look at the predictions.... how many of them came to pass?

Secondly, GP talks a good game about this being a Game Politics website, but I'm failing to see the walk. It's mostly about reporting on Court cases and pending legislation. Always reacting, never preempting. You want to change the dialog on this issue sooner rather than later? GET INVOLVED! Go volunteer with your local Democratic Party (YES DEMOCRATS, we are the most ideologically receptive to the pro-game, anti-censorship message; we just have a few unenlightened members opperating on misinformation/ignorance). Contribute to pro-game candidates (I know of one running for Congress in Florida RIGHT NOW). Or take the plunge yourself and RUN FOR OFFICE.

If GP wants to start making changes in the dialog, he's going to have to overcome his Journalism Training, and start taking sides.

Gamepolitics just reports,it wasn't conceived with activism in mind. but if we,Gamers want to be active,then let's do it.


We should inform people about this. nearly half of america is comprised of gamers,many of them above voting age,and those kind of overwhelming numbers will tip the scales with a vengence.

to the office of president.

my bad.

My mistake. Remove that question mark from my second sentence.

@ Scoops

Hahaha, I DO remember that! Vaguely but I remember it, I had a subscription to Nintendo Power at that time also.

Nicholas,
As Jeffy pointed out, this is an interactive news site. It provides information that readers, whoever they may be, can act on. And many readers here HAVE acted. Whether writing their own editorials to mainstream media, ether original editorials or responses to other articles, or letters to politicians, organizations, or even, as the issue required, individuals. They've had their say in public forums, including this one.

Many of the members here are members of various political and non-political organizations.

GP, as a journalistic site, shouldn't take sides. Merely report the news that pertains to this site. Too much these days, journalists seek sensationalism or editorialize their stories, even though the story isn't an editorial. Many journalists will parrot things other people say without actually doing research. We've seen that a LOT recently in the mainstream media's handling of Bully.

As to choosing one side or the other politically, I'm Unaffiliated. I prefer it that way. As to Hilary Clinton, I have many reasons to not vote for her, not merely video game issues. As to Republicans, I have quite a bit of displeasure with a great many of them as well. I haven't, frankly, been satisifed with ANY of the options in the past few elections.

nightwng2000
NW2K Software

As I said in last week's Political Game's reaction thread. I'm not going to decide against someone just because their anti-game. However, the fact that she's willing to waste money in what will almost certainly be a fruitless attempt at breaching the first amendment over a scapegoat is costing her some points with me.

PlayfulPuppy Says:
October 20th, 2006 at 11:50 am

‘Shielding’? What, are kids being bombarded with games now?

*Imagines an assault on a poor innocent town by a catapult-wielding Lowenstein who launches volleys of "evil" games onto unsuspecting parents*

Is it me, or do these people act like games are some sort of active predator?

JT didn't use "mental molestation" for nothing...

To be perfectly honest other then the anti-gaming, pro-censorship, anti-free speech nanny-statist agenda she took on to gain votes from the right, i actually like Hillary Clinton. I'm not as mad or pissed off at her as i am dissappointed. To think she went from a pro-youth perspective with wanting to give teens the right to vote (back in the 90's) to wanting to take away their First Amendment rights to play the games they want nowadays. It makes me sad.

@jccalhoun

"Too liberal for Indiana"??? What a slogan...

I believe I called this way back. That voting to not waste money, that voting to not waste court time on a clearly unconstitutional effort, that voting to spend millions drafting legislation that wouldn't work, instead of working to educate parents, would eventually come back to bite them in the arse.

"I voted to save taxpayer dollars and work towards a REAL solution to helping parents."
"No you didn't, you voted to enable mental molestors to squirt their man-juice into kiddies brains! Rapist! I'll bet you're gay!"
"WTF?"

Some people these days would argue that the 'third party' greens and libertarians are really second parties, since the Republicans and Democrats are sometimes almost indistinguishible. It's not always the case, but it is frequently and the third parties are rallying some support simply because people want options other than the 'Republicrats.'
I do agree that the voting system in place is somewhat to blame, although this is largely because people perceive it that way and that voting for a third party is 'throwing your vote away.' It's not, especially if you agree with one of those party's platforms. There are rules in place that make it very hard for third party candidates to even get on ballots (which is ridiculous in my opinion), but I think the rules are less nasty if you pulled enough votes in the last election. And you qualify for funding if you pull enough votes.
And if enough people actually vote for third parties I'd wager that you'd see a change in how those in power act. Politics today is a lot of bickering, game-playing, oneupsmanship, backbiting, and all sorts of nasty things - politicians are sometimes so preoccupied with their image that they do a piss-poor job of RUNNING THE GODDAMN COUNTRY. Part of this is because most of them are quite secure in their positions; if they suddenly perceive that a large bloc of voters are voting for third party candidates, they may wake up and pay attention to what people want in their leaders because they're suddenly aware that the hearts and minds of voters are no longer backing them so strongly.
Changes in the voting system would help greatly - Instant Runoff Voting is the big idea these days - but sadly the rules that most of us hate are rules that many Americans are ignorant of and that keep those in power in power. I'd love to see changes, but a national movement for those changes is unlikely. It'd be perhaps more reasonable to have some states make the change, since you're having to persuade a smaller body - but maybe that creates issues when you have IRV state elections and winner-take-all nationals.

@Zanzer

"It is already a strong social understanding that the Government does bear some responsibility when it comes to children’s upbringing."

The HELL it is. It is government's responsibility to intervene when -criminal actions- occur. Child abuse/neglect is -criminal-, and was made criminal because (it sounds incredibly simplistic but when you get down to it most criminal law is) it -hurts- them in tangible and quantifiable ways. Allowing your kids violent video games does NOT hurt them, is therefore not in any way shape or form comparable to abuse, and until there is definitive proof otherwise the government not only has no responsibility to intervene, they have no -right- to.

In short, your understanding of the argument and the situation is fundamentally flawed.

@Nicholas

First, I strongly suggest you take the time to go back and read through this website before you post again. By all means, link us to an example of Dennis' "heavy editorializing". As others have pointed out (note Illspirit's -partial- list) the Democrats are pretty much the Official Party Sponsor of Censorship. The Republicans make a fair go, mainly on issues of sexual content, but the Democrats have left them in the shade for years.

As for your defense of the two-party system, you've got one thing right: It -is- an outgrowth of the structure of our electoral system. Which only means that an assertion that the two-party system is fatally flawed (and it is) is also an assertion that our electoral system is fatally flawed and needs reform. George Washington had a good grasp of the core issue:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."

Laws and government systems are like many human constructions. We build them to fulfill a specific function and then, as the situation changes we try to make minor patches and fixes to preserve functionality when in reality a -redesign- adapted to the new situation would serve us better. The systems designed to curtail government power and preserve individual liberty in a country of a few hundred thousand citizens simply aren't equipped to deal with a country of 300 million.

That being said, the first two criteria for a good candidate for government office in my mind are A) an intent to reduce the power of the executive branch, B) an intent to reduce the power and size of the federal government as a whole. The Republicans may not meet those criteria these days, but the Democrats -never- have, and their ideas of an egalitarian society maintained at gunpoint are fundamentally contrary to the principle of Liberty that is supposed to be the heart and soul of American political and public life.

Finally, if I didn't feel my abilities could be put to more productive use in the fields of original Biotech and genetic engineering research I -would- run for office. I'd lose badly, but I'd run. As it is, I and many other people here -are- politically active, so your suggestions on that front are unnecessary and mildly offensive, since if you'd bothered to read any of the old threads you'd have realized that. We write and talk on the phone to our representatives, participate in PACs or advocacy groups (that is, they do. I don't) like the ECA that was recently announced here. You're in the wrong place to troll for DNC donations or political support. The democrats here (actually, I believe Dennis is one?)

(verdammt enter button.)

The democrats here already support their party, and those of us who don't aren't likely to be swayed, not because we're apathetic or ignorant, but because we're -informed-. We -know- them.

@Benji
When a mistakes happens, which I also believe Hot Coffee was, the company is still fully responsble for it. There is no structure of forgiveness in the business world, and there shouldn't be. Intentional or not, they were neglectful with their product. They deserve to have a cloud of suspicion held over them, just as any company would after making a mistake with their product. Mistakes have an impact on company reputations.

I'd say the POS has been the worst problem of all. It acts as a revolving door to everything else. "How can I monitor what my kids play when I can't trust the store not to sell it to them, as their policy states?" If we can get that one under control, then I feel the whole anti-gaming movement would lose wind.

There's not much we can do about information skewing. It's part of representing an idea; information is nothing without opinionated interpretation of the figures. I still believe that politicans are mostly trying to serve the people - their jobs depend on it! They just aren't being exposed to all of the pertinant information.

@Jeffy
At the time, gamers united to defend Rockstar, rather than uniting to set an example to other companies that such mistakes won't be tolerated. What did that look like to the non-gaming community?

Now it's done and over with, but we can't blame people for holding suspicions over Rockstar.

If we work as Wal-Mart, Best Buy, EB, etc., then that just shows that we are the ones responsible for breaking the store policies when it comes to minors. Good job shooting us in the foot by making us responsible for our own downfall. Here's your #3: http://www.mediafamily.org/research/report_vgrc_2005.shtml

"Our survey of retailers found that 80 percent of store personnel were able to describe their stores' policies. And yet, in spite of these policies, enforcement falls short. Half of the time, young children are able to walk out of their stores with M-rated games in hand."

Please don't try to debunk the NIMF.

It doesn't matter who's responsible for doing it. What is important is who is responsible for stopping it. If we're not going to, then the Government will.

Why do you say that I'm ignoring something that has nothing to do with the discussion? Whether or not they will still play the games has nothing to do with how easy they can gain access to it without parental consent.