January 9, 2008
With a narrow win in yesterday's New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has survived to fight another day.So do accusations that she is a nanny state proponent. Writing for Human Events, Cord Blomquist and John Berlau of conservative think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute, (CEI) accuse Clinton of not trusting parents to raise their own children, particularly in regard to video games:
Clinton has become a sort of “cultural warrior” against video games she deems too violent. While barely saying a critical word about the politically powerful sectors of movies, television and music, she has blamed violence in video games for a host of society’s ills and supported legislation cracking down on video game makers and retailers...
Conservatives... should be wary of increased government intervention in this area... Many of the video game bills range from impractical to counterproductive. Moreover, depending on who is in charge of Congress or the presidency, government intervention in the private ratings system could result in the blackballing of games deemed to be “politically incorrect...”
The authors cite one of the early court decisions striking down video game legislation:
Reagan-appointed federal appeals court judge Richard A Posner... declared, “To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it...”
Blomquist and Berlau also worry about the so-called "slippery slope" effect of restricting the free speech rights of video games:
With video games as a precedent, other forms of “politically incorrect” media could be next... opponents of conservative talk radio could conceivably say a program should be banned because “violent” topics are sometimes covered, and it is broadcast at times when children can listen.
That’s why we should oppose proposals creating a federal “village” to control video games, and realize that to guide children through all forms of media, it ultimately takes a family.
GP: While Blomquist and Berlau raise some good points, we should point out that CEI accepts corporate funding. We have no information as to whether video game industry interests are contributors.
Comments
I'd say that considering how they conveniently went after Clinton here - but entirely ignored Romney's railing against games - that it's much more likely video games are a simple attack vector for them, and CEI doesn't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about games.
Were she to win the primary, I'll reconsider voting for her in the Big Show (since my options will be limited), but for now, when I have options, I won't back someone who supports "for the children" legislation.
Of course you'll have to consider all of the other things your candidate stands for may outweigh in your mind the concerns of a hobby, but when it happens you have no one to bitch at but yourself.
For me it isn't an issue of electronic toys, it's an issue of freedom and liberty and I do not take it lightly. People are told to pick their battles. While you may choose to let this one go, I'm fighting this one. If a "pro-regulation" candidate wins in both parties, fuck it, I'm not voting.
If it is Clinton v. McCain I will vote for McCain in a heartbeat. I am very liberal politically but there is no way I comfortable with her as President.
"If a “pro-regulation” candidate wins in both parties, fuck it, I’m not voting."
Not voting is a waste of your vote. If both the democrats and republicans end up with someone pro-regulation, vote for one of the third part candidates, or write in someone. That's a far better use of your vote to protest than wasting it by leaving it idle.
Why aren't they also bashing Romney on this? Or Bill O'Really?
your vote doesn't count anyway.
Look at the title of the post to know why O'Reilly and Romney get off easy...
Ditto.
I feel exactly the same. I see the attempts to regulate video games as a slippery slope to regulate other forms of media and even my life. Sure, it may not happen in my lifetime, but that it could happen is bad enough. I want to do everything in my power to support and maintain a free society in my country. Some may see it as regulating video games (or movies, or the internet), but I see it as regulating freedom.
If it comes down to it, I'll find someone else to vote for.
"they conveniently went after Clinton here - but entirely ignored Romney’s railing against games"
Romney went after the retailers for selling M rated games to minors. Clinton is proposing straight up censorship of games from a development standpoint. There's a big difference there, and one is a larger enemy than the other, even if Romney was more up front with his displeasure of videogames. At least he knows when not to censor things he does not like.
Especially after her win in NH, I'd wager there'll be a lot more people taking shots at her.
LOL
Government has killed MORE PEOPLE than anyone, except maybe natural causes.
And we get a politician preaching to us about morals????
Hillary - get a clue - go pull Bill off of some chick and leave us the F' alone. You won't get my vote at all. Period.
She has one agenda and one agenda only. POWER.
If it means banning games, guns, fast food, pizza, sex - she'll do it - as long as she thinks it's making her more powerful.
Think about the cycle that video games are part of. Congress went after comic books in the 1950s, rap music in the 1980s and the 2000s look like the decade for a video game battle. In each case, they've used a form of media as a scapegoat for why kids in the U.S. were so screwed up. So, if the government succeeds in tearing up the game industry, what new form of media is going to come along in 25 years or so that will likewise get unjustly censored?
(Beneath this rhetoric is just a man who really wants to experience Star Trek holodeck-style entertainment. I swear I'm not thinking of any genre in particular.)
yes no?
Something which is often overlooked is that abstinence from the political process, I.E. voting, while somewhat frowned upon is an equally viable democratic choice as casting in with any party or person is.
No, because a gamer is not considered 3/5 of a person ;)
Pick a winner.
"the act of running for the president of the united states has become so debasing that no great people will run for office anymore"
that is all.
PS. @ D.vel.oper
at this point in time, I'll pick the guy that eats glue over the guy that f--ks us up even more.
I see great things for Huckabee, but of course, he'd have to win first.
McCain I'd also tolerate - he has some unpopular stances on issues, but at least he doesn't lie about them. His refreshingly bullshit-free image makes him kind of the anti-Romney.
1. Bother to learn how to spell a persons name before talking about them. I know that this site still desperately needs an "edit" button, but would it kill any of us to look over our posts once or maybe even twice before hitting the "submit" button?
2. See above. Both Skyler and Benji have already addressed Romney's "rantages" directly and why Clinton gets the privilege of being singled out in this manner. Namely:
A) Romney is targeting retailers, not developers, and is therefore not supporting state censorship, merely state interference into an industry voluntary ratings system (which might also be "over the line" depending on where you stand, but it isn't censorship like what Hillary is wanting).
B) Neither Romney nor Huckabee won the NH primary, whereas Clinton did, making her anti video game views a bit more immediately alarming to me.
Both of these points are merely restatements of what was said above, so perhaps you should have read them before posting something.
I am not trying to come down unfairly hard on you, it is just that spelling and reading comments that come before yours are two things that really get to me. If you had wanted to bring something new to the table, perhaps such as comparing the views of Hillary to those of Romney or Huckabee, then it would be a different story.
(side note: I corrected five spelling errors before hitting the "submit" button. That backspace key is a really useful thing sometimes. Any that are left are from me being an idiot.)
With zippy we settle for coherence.
Not that I have any love for Huckabee, but when did he rant over video games? Romney and Clinton are the only candidates this cycle I associate with the anti-game movement, unless I overlooked something.
fair enough. we did manage to achieve coherence.
And I am not saying that we should not be looking at Romney or Huckabee, because I don't agree with either of their stances on video games, either, I just find them less... concerning (nanny-state, catastrophic, unconstitutional) than Clintons.
"If liberals had brains they would be conservatives."
“If liberals had brains they would be conservatives.”
Don't give me that shit. Conservatives are responsible for a lot of dumb shit themselves. For example: Iraq. Need we say any more?
1- If they make Hillary's position unpopular enough, Romney will flip-flop on his like he does with everything else.
2- Should Romeny *shudder* win, they will still want a seat at the policy table. Attacking him now would effectively burn that bridge.
Anyway either this person has been reading our comments, is looking for any way she can bash Hillary (my guess, although I don't mind) or has realised what he have known all along. Now if only more people can come to these conclusions.
They may support video game regulation, BUT what you have to ask yourself next is, how rigorously do they support it?
If Clinton went into office and proposed some anti-game legislation and it failed, do you think she would try again even if it cost the government hundreads of thousands of dollars? Yes, probably in a heartbeat.
Now replace Clinton with any other candidate besides Huckabee or Romney and ask yourself the same question. Some might try again but others would probably just let the issues die or find some other way to deal with the issue (like educating parents about the ESRB).
Also wich do you think would propose a harsher anti-game law, Clinton or Edwards? That's what I thought.
I think all the candidates would support, in one way or another, the regulation of violent video games. The only one that wouldnt is Ron Paul, but he would only oppose it at the federal level, and because his judges would be \"strict constructionists\" they probably wouldnt think the 1st Amend covers video games and woudlnt think the 1st Amend apllies to the states anyhow.
But if you consider how important judges are, then imo any one of the Democrats (including Hillary) would be preferrable because liberals typically have a much broader interpretation of free speech than conservatives do, and also believe it should be enforced on the whole country (not just the federal gov\'t).
America hates Liberalism, that's fine, 50-60 years ago, the UK was a staunchly conservative country, after the disaster with a Liberal PM at the start of WW2, it was a long time before they were forgiven. The same situation sits with Conservatives now, too many people remember Thatcher, who was sort of a prototype for Clinton, which is making the Conservative party in the UK have to work twice as hard for trust. However, I don't ever recall the blame for Chamberlains' mistakes being put on his supporters, I don't recall people saying that Liberals' like Nazis, purely because the PM got duped by Hitler (I'm not sure if that's Godwin, but since I'm not comparing, I'm simply stating history, I'll assume not) even if Churchill did beat David Lloyd George in the Elections because of it.
That's why I hate comments like 'If Liberals had brains, they'd be conservatives', and my leanings are mostly conservative. Let's face it, if only the people that truly understood the issues voted in any country, there'd be no such things as elections, because understanding an issue is purely subjective.
I grew up in a country that hates its own working class, we are little more than a source of revenue for the other classes. It started at Thatcher, and has continued throughout the Blair years, that wasn't because Thatcher was Conservative any more than it was because Blair was Labour, it was because there are no distinct political parties any more, and politics has become a side-show, much like Christmas, Britney Spears and Oprah. It's not about what you believe any more, it's about who you can fool.
#1. Courts have ruled repeatedly that video games count as protected speech
#2. Of course the first ammendment applies to the constitution, all of them do. It's written in the sontitution which judges have sworn to uphold.
The whole 'if liberals had brain' bit was by Ann Coulter, a notoriously extremist and hateful person. Don't judge America based on her, that would be like trying to judge conservatives based on abortion clinic bombers.
Apparently, there are some voting discrepancies, one county which didn't get its votes counted etc, nothing 'dodgy' from what I can tell, but still frustrating in such a hotly competed election.
Actually....I gotta agree with her there. A lot of parents can't raise their kids...nor do I trust them with raising them. That doesn't, however, mean that we need anti-free speech laws though.
If we were talking about real liberals (as in, Jeffersonian pro-liberty liberals), then, yes, you would have a point. Modern American "liberals," however, care more about gaining and using coercive, regulatory powers to control people for "their own good." Clinton (and I suspect the other Dem candidates aside from Kucinich) is also in favor of appointing Justices who interpret the Constitution using international law, thus making us more "modern" and "progressive" like Europe. Ergo, should Hillary get the job, there is a very real risk of ending up with a Court that says game bans are okay because the UK/Germany/whoever does it. In fact, I'd almost bet money on it.
Conservative jurists, on the other hand, don't like finding Constitutional loopholes for modern issues in "penumbras." Aside from a few odd wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage, they really don't like Federal usurpation of power very much. And if you'll notice, the judge cited in the linked article who shot down the first American game ban was appointed by Reagan.
Or, going a bit off topic, most people think the War on Drugs™ is mostly a conservative moralist position. Yet in Gonzales v. Raich , 545 U.S. 1 (2005), Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer were the "liberal" majority (joined by swinging Kennedy) in upholding the Federal ban on marijuana. Scalia, who concurred to differentiate it from other "interstate commerce" decisions, was the only conservative to go along with it. Dissent was written by O'Conner (who, while quite liberal, delivered a rather conservative opinion based in federalism), and joined by Rehnquist and Thomas.
Had this appeal happened two years later, after Bush nominated Alito and Roberts (who both big fans of federalism), marijuana might just be legal again..