It's not just conservatives that need to be wary of nanny state politics. Liberals have plenty to say about it as well. I'm a leftie, and this is the primary issue that I can say pushed me over the edge to not be a supporter of Clinton.

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.

The problem is we all may have no choice but to vote for someone more than willing to regulate our games. And when we can no longer play games like they used to be, we will be complicit in supporting those who have no qualms in state censorship.
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.

XD what kid listens to radio these days???

Is the Regan ass-kissing necessary? Oy.

Why aren't they also bashing Romney on this? Or Bill O'Really?

@Gray17

your vote doesn't count anyway.

@JQuilty

Look at the title of the post to know why O'Reilly and Romney get off easy...

@ Bill

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.

@Moof
"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.

OMFG, that's a hoot!

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.

The soccor mom vote > gamer vote

yes no?

@Arion

No, because a gamer is not considered 3/5 of a person ;)

Fuck 'em all, I'm penciling in Ralph Wiggum.

Pick a winner.

@ DCOW:

I see great things for Huckabee, but of course, he'd have to win first.

Oh yes lets ignore Romney and Huckbess rantage over games....

oh my goodness, I forgot that I am not supposed to use angle brackets. silly me. Here is the rest of that comment:

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.)

@Zippy

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.

Demos vote Obama, Reps vote Ron Paul. Simple.

@AlexTaldren

“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?

Slipper Slope huh? I thought that was the name of a logical fallacy. Oh well.

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.

Judges are more important than what legislation a candidate is proposing, because they have the last say on whether the legislation is constitutional or not.

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).

Your country has too few libratarian supporters, simple as that.

@goodrobotus

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.

Hmmm... Yeah, Ann Coulter is sort of like the Tazmanian Devil of the Republic Party isn't she? Also, looking at pictures, she's about the only politician I've ever seen who could effectively campaign against Zombie Violence because of a genuine fear for her own safety.

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.

Hey, I don't know where to alert Dennis of stories so I guess I'll do it here (It's kind of related). FOX is about to do a story on a game that they say exploits 9/11. Judging from the graphics it is obviously a homebrewed game (doubt they'll mention that). Anyone else consider that ironic considering that one of the presidential candidates is exploiting 9/11 for his own campaign?

@DigDug-

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).

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..

Illspirit,

Federalism would mean that, just like marijuana, states could have the power to censor or not censor video games. Thats what states rights advocates want, but thats not what we do (or at least not what I do). We want the 1st Amend to protect video games from the Feds AND from the states. And I think its a difference between the fact that free speech is explicitly in the BORs and drugs arent. I could see a general right to use drugs being established, that would be a very liberal decision though.

Were not talking about drugs though, any more than were talking about guns. Liberals would be bad for gun rights, but theyre good for free speech. Conservatives would be better for gun rights, but are worse for free speech. There are all kinds of cases where conseratives have voted for... a more narrow interpetation of the 1st. I dont have any example for you offhand 9nude dancing, but Ill just ask you to be honest about this: What kind of judge is more likey to find pornography protected by the 1st Amendment, liberals or conservatives? The answer to that question is obvious to anybody. And that would very likely be the same for video games as well.

Judge Posner from what I know of him is more of a libertarian. He\'s not the kind of republican judge that would make it to the supreme court because the conservative base of the republican party wouldnt allow it. They dont know whats going on, for the most part, at the lower federal courts though, so Presidents try to appoint judges to those courts depending on the ideology of the area of the country theyre going to serve. I believe Posner is in California. BTW Posner has said he would not overturn Roe V Wade (just to give you an idea of what kind of judge he is). Penumbras have to do with unenumerated rights or interpreting rights more broadly - I think thats a good thing. And we want federal power when its the supreme court protecting our rights (video games) from the Congress and state governments.

I dont like the idea of looking to international law, but I dont really understand that issue except that it seems like its something some conservative activists are trying to play politics with. I dont think its a big deal and I know liberal judges wouldnt use it to more narrowly interpret the 1st Amend (they havent yet) and definitely not more narrowly than your typical conservative would.

sorry, i see there's another "sean" poster here, i'l call myself SeanHMS now.

I was mainly just using federalism to illustrate how they would likely rule against a Federal law even if they might otherwise lean towards it. With regards to State laws, yes, that would be another can of worms. However, with the somewhat ironic exception of someone like Ron Paul, most federalists and the jurists they would nominate believe that the BoR is enforceable against the several States via the 14th. Especially when it comes to issues with mountains of precedent, being that they tend to be quite devoted to the principle of stare decisis.

Justice Alito, for instance, sided with the majority while on the 3rd Circuit that a teacher reading a Bible aloud in class violated the establishment clause, but dissented to say that placing the child's poster in an inconspicuous location violated his right to free speech. It's hard to get more liberal on the 1st than saying mere poster placement is an infringement. But, then again, Morse v. Frederick throws a monkey wrench into predicting such things..

On the other hand, with modern "liberal" jurists, you don't have the luxury of having precedent on your side, as they seem to enjoy changing things for the sake of "progress." Nor do they seem to appreciate very many limits on government power if it's designed to "protect" people, from themselves or otherwise. And, for that matter, it was so-called liberal politicians who created the FCC, then upheld its Constitutionality in court. The risk of having international law cited as justification for game bans doesn't sound like fun either.

At any rate, I for one would much rather risk a 50 State gauntlet of federalism with 9 already out of the way, than a one-time smackdown from SCOTUS. Even if we were to lose one along the way in the prior, it will be easier to reconcile the split down the line. Especially since it would take so long that games will be beyond mainstream by the time we get there. With a Supreme Court defeat at the Federal level, not only would we face a vertical wall to climb back up, but it would set up a rather nasty precedent for further infringements in other areas.

As for who would be more likely to find porn protected, that's highly unlikely from either side for generations because it is so deeply ingrained into Constitutional and common law. Most so-called liberals won't want to touch it because anything that undermines government regulation scares them. And, obviously, most conservatives won't touch it because the whole tradition/Jesus thing. The best and only bet for a long time is a libertarian judge. And while this may scare some of the Republican base, it scares the national Democratic leadership even more. ;)

And, yes, penumbras are okay when it comes to protecting unenumerated rights. When it comes to giving the state more regulatory or police power, not so much. In my honest opinion, the single greatest injury to the 9th Amendment was done by FDR during the New Deal. And he's pretty much the father of modern American "liberalism."

Anyway you dice it, this sounds like an Anti-Hilary piece. Whether the corporation is being fueled by the Video Game Industry or another candidate. We all know this, gamers are not some violent idiots that will lie down and accept what Hilary, Romney or anyone else tries to pull if they become president. We have the backing of the ESA, ESRB, ECA and the VGVN. Gamers, Developers, Hard working class individuals will not lie down taking this. Any attempts at government regulation in the past have failed and proponents like Hilary or Thompson that even try to connect the dots to try and say that Video Games need to be regulated will be shot down in flames. There are some evils we need to deal with, even though a pro anti video game candidate may become president, they know darn well what legislation in the past has done. Trust me on this, we will fight to the very last word, tooth and nail. Bring it on if you try to threaten my freedoms, regulate one of my hobbies and try to create a nanny state. I'm an individual with a mind and an opinion. I dont need the government telling me what is good for me.

@ GoodRobotUs:

Sorry to get all technical, but I really must point out that Chamberlain and his predecessor Baldwin were both Conservatives like Churchill. In fact David Lloyd Georg, the last Liberal PM, left office in 1922. George was mostly an enemy of Chamberlain's appeasement. Churchill, a former Liberal minister under George and still an ally, replaced Chamberlain. I suppose since Churchill was always closer politically to George, it could be said that the Conservatives botched WWII, and the Liberals saved it. Political parties meant less than they do today, the same as in the US at the same time.

As for Hillary and video games: if she wins the primary, she'll be most likely to win the race unless the GOP really does pick McCain (or possibly Giuliani), which would make it competitive. Obama has a better chance to win in a landslide, but he also has a chance to botch the election due to inexperience (the clean slate works both ways). He'd still be the favorite, but at this point he isn't quite as likely (in my judgment) to score those vital 270 electoral votes as is a Clinton. Of course since much of my analysis is subjective and based on polling for an election that is still 11 months away, anything can happen.

@Hadradi

I was sure he was Liberal, I stand corrected....

The point is, at least still valid that Chamberlains' actions were not attributed to the supporters of his party, only to the supporters of his actions :)

That's really no coincidence; the whole idea of conservative politics is to preserve things the way they are. If change is needed, they bring it around slowly and carefully.

But you're right about the hypocrisy. Even if i think of it more as political smacktalk than actual videogame criticism.