December 21, 2007
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...
Finally, the bill would authorize the FTC to conduct an annual, random audit of retailers to monitor enforcement and report the findings to Congress.
FEPA was prompted by the Hot Coffee scandal, said Clinton:
I was motivated to take action when I found out that there was embedded illicit sexual content in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The [ESRB] was unaware of the embedded content. I called on the FTC to investigate the source of the content and, as a result, the company issued a recall of the game.
When I am president, I will work to protect children from inappropriate video game content.
Sen. Clinton described for CSM her biggest concern about media as a parent:
Research has shown that violent and sexually explicit media contribute to aggressive behavior, early sexual experimentation, obesity, and depression.
Whenever I meet young parents... they tell me that they are worried about losing control over the raising of their own children and about ceding the responsibility of implicating values and behaviors to a multi-dimensional media marketplace over which they have no control...
Studies have found that exposure to TV violence can increase the risk of aggressive behavior in children and may be related to attention problems later in life. And some experts say that time spent watching too much TV or surfing the Internet or playing video games may detract from the time children spend interacting with their parents, participating in physical activity, or using their imaginations.
Comments
Not true. A ton of people my age are waiting to vote. We're tired of the war, crappy health care, and diminishing social liberities. I'm 23. I'll probably be one of the first people voting in my state's democratic primary (undecided at the moment, waiting on further results to decide. Will vote for Biden, Kucinich, Edwards. Refuse to vote for Clinton or Obama). So there's one person, =P. Surprised yet?
@GP
I hope I was not IP banned for posting on this thread... especially since I have net yet posted on it, =P.
@OP
Video Games: The Sacrifical Lamb for 2008.
Gamers refuse to stand up and mobolize for gaming rights, and statements like these represent the consequences we face. It doesn't matter which party you support. The party of Corporatized Christian Facism, the GOP [this term may sound strong, but please study GOP stances of the issues], will strike down gaming laws for the sheer moral delight. Democrats see game legislation as an acceptable means of reaching out to socially conservative democratic voters and independents.
Republicans despise them on a religiously biggoted fundamental level [Romney's/Huckabee's "culture of filth, enforce obsenity laws"]. Democrats exploit them to reach out to the baby booming moralistic crowd [Clinton's absurd national protectionist laws].
A parent should probably not have had a child if they are so ignorant and unskilled at childrearing that they no longer can help their child develop positive values.
@Austin
I wouldn't call her the worst canidate in the field. She is most definately the worst Democratic canidate, but at least she stands behind socially liberal values and mildly progressive foriegn and domestic policies [to SOME extent, but most wise people do not trust her -- she is THE establishment canidate]. I think Huckabee and Romney represent a FAR graver threat for the following reasons: anti-enviroment, anti-peace, anti-diplomacy, anti-health care, anti-education, pro-torture, anti-gay rights,, anti-woman, goverment services, anti-freedom, anti-secular government, anti-politicat tact, anti-unifying (to name only a few reasons). Should we really trust the executive branch to people who support an illegal war, oppose nationalizing health care, have *ZERO* foriegn policy experience, behave cravenly superstitious, and serve as a bridge back to McCarthian 1950's-esque "family" values?
At least democrats have enough sense to stand up for important social issues and oppose our insane, destructive, "cowboy" style foriegn policy. But, as I've said in previous posts, they support game lesiglation only because it is politically convenient. Gamers have yet to molbilize and demand protection for this industry. Until we can make protecting games a political neccessity that will ensure votes, liberal canidates will continue to exploit them to reach out to social conservatives. I do not think there is much hope for games in the realm of GOP politics. The right has become excessively dependent on their religiously fanatic evangelical base over the last two decades. These people want to see games regulated on a content level and justify just about anything as a means to the end of "protecting the children."
Iraq, the economy and other issues most likely rank a bit higher on the agenda. While I'm sure she would support such legislation if it came up in Congress, I'm not really sure they will have time to get to this for a few more years at least.
Anyway, I'd rather vote for an Edwards/Obama ticket.
I see, so instead of say... vetting the media they give to their children or switching the TV/PC/Games console off these "young parents", powerless as they are, want to cede control to the state. Oh the irony!
I wonder... Perhaps we wouldn't get anecdotal nonsense and over interpretation of statistics like this if public surveys actually asked parents which they think would empower them more: the off button or a raft of censorial government legislation?
In any case I must laugh at the "young parent" line, I'm detecting an attempt to deflect criticism. Hillary seems to be suggesting that it's not just older reactionaries getting their knickers in a twist (over a recent phenomenon they neither know or understand). In that regard and although I'm only a single data point, I feel obliged to say I'm not too far off of becoming a young parent (sic) myself. However, as I grew up gaming and never felt a serious compulsion to kill while doing so, I don't see video games as the boogie man under my (or my children's) bed.
Anyway, Hiliray and her "Common Sense" group are idiots. That is all.
And yet they would have no qualms about ceding the responsibility of implicating values and behaviours to Congress? Are these people on drugs?
Can i get an AMEN from those who believe that extremism in todays politics will be the death of us all!?
I myself would like to know what is her stance to support the voting-age gamers, not just the parents. We've only heard one side of this issue, so far.
Of course, if she ignores our questions--that in itself is telling.
Just look at her early major contributer Haim Saban.Haim Saban made his early millions on bringing the "Power Rangers" over to the US from Japan. That show for years was treated the same way that video games are treated today (the show was constantly blamed for youth violence, even banned in a canadian province for a little while after some insident in witch a young child died). And rapper Timbaland raised $800,000 for the Clinton campaign in a ritsy party at the rappers mansion. Hearing her critic the game biz makes me want to barf.
Better yet type up a boiler plate form letter and pass it along to all who are appauled to this kind of crap that Senator Clinton is pushing.
Here's the link: http://www.democrats.org/contact.html
The only way we get this changed is to make our voices heard as a group of voters who aren't going to stand for anymore political grandstanding on non-issues.
don't worry, none of our votes count anyway, as was proven in the 2000 elections.
down with the Electoral College!
Video games aren't the biggest issue, the biggest issues would be things like re-entering the nuclear non-proliferation agreements the USA pulled out of a couple years ago in order to develop the first new nuclear weapons in almost 50 years, thus giving Russia cart blanche to hand uranium and nuclear technology to Iran.
I'm thinking of having us build a letter together, using our community as well as the Penny Arcade community, add our real names, signatures, city and state we live in (another reason I choose Dennis--I trust him with such info). This letter should be sent to each presidential candidate, for each to respond in their own way.
Yes, we gamers recognize the need to keep violent/offensive video games away from Minors. The vast majority of us do not support legislation as it is implemented now (that's not to say we do not support legislation at all-just their current strategy). The REAL question of the letter is "How will you protect the consumers of video games, and video games themselves as an expression of free speech?"
I figure in this way--if nothing else, we can point these candidates towards GamePolitics.com, and make them realize that they are watched very closely by their own voters.
'Hilary Clinton, ignores famine and poverty, cares about Mario...'
"It is rare that the Electoral votes differ from popular votes, and Gore BARELY won that."
so the whole while they were saying "every vote counts" and watching Florida like a hawk three other whole states hadn't tallied any votes. THREE ENTIRE STATES did not count in the election.
Really? Young parents tell her that? All the young parents I know tend to be more technologically savvy and understand that media is going to play a role in their kid's childhood. I would consider myself more prepared to raise a child in a digital age than my parents did when they raised me.
The kyoto accords are crap, no matter how you look at it.
As for peace and diplomacy, I don't think anyone is anti-peace.
As for torture and freedom, there is nothing in the constitution that says you have the right to privacy, nor in the bill of rights.
But as I said before, no one votes between 18-25. You may, Pandralisk, but you're one of the very few.
most of my friends and coworkers have kids (wife and i are working on that) and they're ALL far more aware and prepared to deal with new media. hell, most of them play games with their kids, from Leapfrogs to Guitar Hero.
incorrect. the Ninth and Tenth amendments see to this.
9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people
On the plus side, once federal legislation gets struck down in such public forum the debate should end much more quickly.
I know there are rumours of 'vote fixing' etc in the last couple of elections, but if the under 30's turned out to make their feelings felt in force, then no amount of 'tweaking' (if it happened) could change the result.
If there is one thing you are going to do in your life in order to make your opinions are truly felt, vote. Sometimes it's hard to find a candidate who supports everything you do, in that case, pick the one that is headed in the closest direction and VOTE. It may not be perfect, but it's a note to the party, when they realise that their more moderate candidates are the ones getting elected, then their policies will change to mirror yours. That is what politics is all about, you aren't voting on their policies, they are picking their policies on what they think you would vote for.
I spend time and chat with my mom whenever she's not busy FYI.
"or using their imaginations."
That's BS, I have a good imagination.
Amen to our message
I vote.
Fair enough. What would you recommend?
go ahead and put a gun to my head i wont let her in there to put up stupid bills just to make us miserable
i vote to make a bill: The Video Games Rights Act of 2008
games cant be censored they are art and the last time i checked your house can be a open, semi open, or closed forum if you want it to be (regards to 1st amendment) the US is a public forum you Jack Arse
i like it how cocky she is:When I am president, I will work to protect children from inappropriate video game content.
note the part wher she sais "When I am President"
i hate her
We're a constitutional republic, not a 'democracy'.
Ya, well, legislations shouldn't be proposed on feelings... EVER. I feel that you shouldn't be running for president, I be a lot of people don, and yet, here you are, in bold defiance to our feelings. Maybe what an individual FEELS shouldn't have anything to do with politics and law in general? Maybe these sort of decisions should be left up to logical people with common sense, not a group of retards who want to ride the bandwagon all the way to the White House.
Regardless of what Mrs. Clinton feels, games aren't getting more sexually explicit, and last I checked, 'Niptuck' was still on the air with all of it's rape, and sex and adult content, and the series 24 was still critically acclaimed. Videogames, on the other hand, are a selective media that only get exposed to the people who have chosen to play them. You'll never accidentally flip past pornography while playing just about any Videogame out them.
"Research has shown that violent and sexually explicit media contribute to aggressive behavior, early sexual experimentation, obesity, and depression."
Cite some facts of shut up with this same old B.S. I'm so tired of these generic 'research' and 'studies' claims because every one of them either didn't actually happen, or is a study about something completely different taken out of context.
I will seriously vote for Romney if she gets the D ticket and he gets the R.
I am dead serious. At least with the D's in Congress he will be held from Religious excess. If Hitlery gets the White House sweeping D reforms will be swept through, and this will be worse than another 4 - 8 years of bitter in-fighting.
And you know how I feel about Romney and his religion.
~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~
what fucking research bitch
No, but I can buy Marvel Comics.
Yes. I'm suprised.
@Austin Lewis
I agree with Pandralisk, in that Hillary is the worst Democrat. Romney and Huckabee however, are a far graver threat.
If she's the front runner, I hope whoever's running against her wins, or we'd all be in trouble.
F yeah
Gamer's don't stand united on things like this because I think most if us are old enough to realize that voting on a singular issue, like video games, won't get anything solved. We can't change people's perceptions via legislation or litigation. If we want to change the public perception of gaming we have to start at the level of the individual.
There are always going to be pandering politicians, and people who want to sue everything they don't like out of existence. Things aren't going to change overnight.