Get out the vote against anti-game politicos
by Kyle Orland 
{ Nov 7th 2006 at 7:00AM }
Ah, midterm election day -- the one day every two years where a politically energized electorate wakes up and says, "There an election today? Crap... who should I vote for?" For those such registered voters out there in Joystiq-land, we've arranged a quick list of some of the more outspoken opponents of video games up for re-election in various statewide races, as well as their chances of winning based on recent polls (Don't like what you see? Get out and vote!). This list is not meant to be exhaustive, and we urge you to look into the positions of all your local officials before you vote today.California:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is probably the only nationally prominent politician who has actually starred in a video game: Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. Last year, under pressure from the state's Democratic legislature, Schwarzenegger signed bill AB1179, banning the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. That pressure came in part from Treasurer Phil Angelides, Schwarzenegger's Democratic challenger for governor, so it looks like Californians will have a Governor who backs these sorts of laws no matter what happens today.
Prediction: Schwarzenegger to win easily. State Senator Leland Yee, the bill's vocal sponsor, looks like he will also win re-election easily.
Connecticut:
Senator Joe Lieberman has been an outspoken opponent of video game violence since the 1992 Senate hearings on the subject. More recently, he joined with Hillary Clinton to back the Family Entertainment Protection Act, which has yet to come to a vote. After coming within a few hundred votes of the vice presidency in 2000, Lieberman was handed a stunning primary defeat to challenger Ned Lamont months ago. Despite this, Lieberman is still running for senator as an independent and doing surprisingly well in the polls.
Prediction: Lieberman wins in a squeaker.
Illinois:
Governor Rod Blagojevich made headlines in gamer circles in 2005, when he pushed through and then signed the Safe Games Illinois act, banning minors in the state from renting or buying violent games. The law was overturned on constitutional grounds in December '05, leading opponents to charge that the governor was only looking for some electoral "razzle dazzle" from a law he knew had no chance of making it through the courts. To add insult to injury, the courts ruled that the state had to pay half a million dollars to reimburse the video game industry for court costs. Now there's a good use of taxpayer dollars.
Prediction: Blagojevich pulls it out by a small margin.
Michigan:
After commissioning and releasing a study showing that minors could easily obtain violent video games, Governor Jennifer Granholm signed law SB416, which was quickly struck down by the federal courts. Granholm also sent letters to retailers urging them not to sell the controversial 25 to Life and her office has pledged to "continue our efforts to protect kids from violent video games by working with retailers."
Prediction: Another squeaker, but Granholm pulls it out.
New York:
Senator Hillary Clinton is one of the leading national voices in "protecting" children from video game violence, introducing the Family Entertainment Protection Act and demanding an FTC investigation of Rockstar after the Hot Coffee scandal. Clinton is widely believed to be gearing up for a presidential run in 2008, and some see her efforts against video games as an effort to appeal to the "values voters" that many in the media consider the key voting block in recent elections. Clinton is poised to win big in this highly Democratic state, but the margin will likely be seen as a predictor of her nationwide political potential in two years.
Prediction: Clinton wins in a walk.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
FuzzyPickles @ Nov 7th 2006 7:07AM
As much as I hate good old Hillary... so far she's managed to run against people that suck even more than she does. I'm not registered to vote, so I don't have to worry about any moral dilemmas.
Don Jose @ Nov 7th 2006 8:05AM
Ah...no anti-gamingness in Arizona!
Anyway, you Connecticutians need to get out there and pwn Lieberman, that silly DINO.
Shadow Hog @ Nov 7th 2006 7:46AM
So in other words, you're telling us to go out and vote, yet saying it's unlikely to matter since ALL of them will win anyway. Very reassuring.
Lefty @ Nov 7th 2006 7:58AM
I VOTED!!! NUMBER 16 IN MY DISTRICT!!!!
Chris Jefferson @ Nov 7th 2006 8:06AM
Here in the UK all games and films are rated according to age, and you can't buy games which are too young for. Personally, I don't have a problem with this, I don't think 11 years olds should be able to buy either SAW III and GTA III. Are these things legal in the US, and do you really want them to remain legal?
ZaBlanc @ Nov 7th 2006 8:11AM
You think a Leiberman vote is a waste? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.
VOTE NED LAMONT!
It's not just about gaming...but it sure helps. :-)
hollerback @ Nov 7th 2006 8:12AM
Shame on Joystiq for this!
I understand it's a video-gaming site, but to slam politicians' ENTIRE RECORDS on important issues such as healthcare, the economy, education, and so forth based on some video game legislation is just nonsense.
I'm from Michigan, and Gov. Jennifer Granholm is pretty much the only person we have that can stop Republicans from turning Michigan into Mississippi. There are a lot of issues here on the ground, and quite frankly, it's irking to no end to encourage readers to vote against some strong, principled candidates based on video game legislators.
Gubernatorial candidates especially. Blagojevich, Schwartzenegger, and Granholm are powerless to do anything about video games unless the legislatures vote for it -- and in most cases, it's these state legislatures that precipitate and advocate the video game legislations.
Today is a very important day for Democracy. Shame on Joystiq for muddling it with fairly insignificant policy positions.
FSK405K @ Nov 7th 2006 8:16AM
Thank you thank you thank you Joystiq for giving us a list. I only wish there were someone in Virginia I could vote against.
GlitchCog @ Nov 7th 2006 8:19AM
Hey hollerback, I think you're at the wrong blog. This one's about video games.
TwilightKnight @ Nov 7th 2006 8:19AM
5.
It isn't the point that the bills are fundamentally wrong or unconsitutional, but that fact that the 'evidence' used in the drafting says that we are all crazy and could snap and start killing everybody at a moments whim.
So when my Governor (Michigan) signed that Bill it was a personal insult to my intelligence and anybody else in my state who plays video games on a regular basis.
That and she doesn't know how to run Michigan at all. Welfare is broken, one of the highest unemployement rankings in the country, 6 years in office and hasn't fixed the education system, etc etc...
modeps @ Nov 7th 2006 8:23AM
I voted this morning against Lieberman... Unfortunately, while I was at the polls, I noticed he was standing with the Republican tent. The GOP knows that their boy isn't going to win, so maybe the Repubs will vote Joe just to stick it to the Dems. I really hope not.
When I was in the booth however, Lieberman's name was really hard to see. It was at the bottom of an already crowded board and, in my booth anyways, not very well illuminated. I'm a taller guy, so I had to crouch down a little to even see it.
Shore @ Nov 7th 2006 8:26AM
In New Jersey, word on the street is Menendez hates gamers, and... um... would have them banned from the state! Yeah! Menendez wants to ban video games in New Jersey!
Ok, so that's not true, but please for the love of God, if you live in Jersey, do not vote for Menendez. Vote Kean or independent (I'm voting Libertarian), just do NOT vote for Menendez.
ProWinkle @ Nov 7th 2006 8:31AM
hollerback,
I am also from Michigan and think about it this way, if she got a law to pass unless your making millions everything you paid in Michigan taxes last year plus at least 10 other's people's taxes were wasted on making such unimportant policies just so Granholm could market herself better to the "won't someone think of the children" crowd.
I agree with you that no one should vote based on a single issue and I will still be voting for her anyway, its not like Bible thumpin D. Devos is going to be any better on this issue anyway.
hollerback @ Nov 7th 2006 8:38AM
ProWrinkle:
I agree with you that these types of legislation are a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. Totally with ya there.
What I disagree with Joystiq is laying the blame on gubernatorial candidates. Granholm didn't propose or rally votes for the law; she signed it. If she doesn't sign it, she's "weak on protecting children." If she does, she's "supporting censorship." Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't.
It's far more important to examine the legislative body and processees. The only legislators Joystiq name are Clinton and Lieberman. With so many house and state races with candidates who *actively* stump on video games, pot shots on the governors are pretty much irrelevant.
C.A. @ Nov 7th 2006 10:59AM
I tend to agree with 5., While I think a censoring or banning certain videogames is unforgivable, a better system to keep material that shouldn't be in minor's hands is a good thing. That could only help to take the heat off of gamers and might shut some politicians up. So far every dumb case (i.e. Jack so-and-so) has been thrown out. I am not too worried about the safety of the freedom of speech, but I think fighting a bill that keeps GTA 3 out a third graders hand becuase he has lousy parents is not good. Just my 2 cents...
RakubikiJiten @ Nov 7th 2006 8:57AM
But you see, Joystiq is a videogame blog. Regardless of anyone's stance on any of the other issues posed in the election, Joystiq compiled a list that says "here are the people who have signed bills against videogames, or who take an anti-game stance." Nowhere does it say "if you vote for this person we will kick you off the site" or any such nonsense. Nowhere does it say "this is the only important issue, so vote ENTIRELY based on this!" They've simply done a service to their readers by making a convenient place to check who is (or isn't) worth supporting from a videogame perspective. Complaining that they didn't cover every hot button issue, or compile an exhaustive list of each listed candidate's position on EVERYTHING is ridiculous. If this were a political blog, then I'd expect a little more, say, complete coverage. Instead, they've done exactly what a game blog should do, cover the issue as it relates to games, and thus to gamers.
32_Footsteps @ Nov 7th 2006 9:00AM
Eh, nobody in any race I voted for took a stance on video gaming anyways (well, I've gotten indications from my US Rep that he'd vote against restrictions on video gaming). So I had to rely on other issues.
As for Virginia - well, if you want to include network neutrality amongst the things gamers might want to consider (among other things, do you want your favorite video game sites and blogs forced on a slow pipe because they wouldn't pay extra to ISPs?), then you do have a clear choice. George Allen does not support network neutrality, and in fact voted specifically to remove it (and voted against the Meehan amendment which would have helped preserve it via a loophole).
Also, if he happens to be your US Rep, Virginia's Rick Boucher both supports gamers (he regularly tries to amend the DMCA to allow mod chips) and voted in favor of net neutrality. He's probably the most pro-gamer guy in Congress, and you can always show your support by voting for him.
Engadgeter @ Nov 7th 2006 9:31AM
#6????????
What are you thinking kid? I live in CT and Lamont is a pompous jerk. I'm not so fond of Liebs either but a vote for Schelschinger is a vote for a Lamont and the state just cant afford that. Plus it doesn't give a seat in the senate to another crazy SP.
doobiwan @ Nov 7th 2006 10:02AM
as a foreigner (from a US perspective) I'd be very interested to hear wider discussion on these candidates from the perspective of the gaming community rather than as just the "anti gaming" line. I imagine there are rather larger issues at stake at the moment, so how does it balance out?
Or is voting just a waste of gaming time? ;)
(I'm in South Africa, only one party ever wins anyway . . . .)
funkonaut @ Nov 7th 2006 10:20AM
Gee. They're all Democrats. What a surprise. (Yes, Schwarzenegger is really a Democrat).
Bos @ Nov 7th 2006 10:51AM
Hmmm...Ah-nold is a Republican in name only, and the others are all Democrats. Why is it every time I seem someone trying to ban something (vidja games, explicit lyrics, guns, tobacco, etc...) it's a Democrat?
Chad @ Nov 7th 2006 10:37AM
Sure, vote against Granholm because she supported one bill you didn't like, that didn't even pass. Ignore the fact that her opposition is a big business, old money, uber conservative who regularly exports jobs over seas and doesn't believe in evolution.
This is the last straw. I just want video game news. I don't want to hear about how you TOTALLY PWNED!!1! some other gaming blog, and I certainly don't want your shoddy, uninformed political advice. I'm removing Joystiq from my Bloglines, and I'm recommending to my friends that they do the same.
GlitchCog @ Nov 7th 2006 10:45AM
doobiwan,
We pretty much have one big ruling class here too, although I'm sure it's hidden more than yours. They all work for industry and filthy rich people. Constituents get a little lip service around presidential elections, but otherwise it's all for big business. Almost all Americans vote against many of their interests because we honestly have very little to choose from.
This election might be a little more influential because a Democratic congress could balance out the power of the Republicans in the executive. This would serve to slow the regression a little, but really nothing would change other than the rate in which our government screws us to help super rich people.
Take the estate tax, now called the “death tax,” for example. It wasn’t even an issue until a think tank funded by really rich people decided they wanted to eliminate it. So they change the name, make up propaganda and get it pushed into media. Suddenly, all these people who would never have even heard of, let alone have had to pay this tax are upset because of some weird concept of the American dream that they read about in a newspaper. They basically bought people’s votes with subtle manipulations. It’s a nicer form of oppression that’s really effective at preventing revolts. It’s entirely manufactured and there’s not a lot we can do about it other than train our children to distrust authority. When enough people open up sufficiently to dissolve the herd, maybe there will be meaningful change.
Until then, voting for the politicians who don't censor our video games is as good a reason as any. So what if you support stem cell research and evolution or if you think only devout Christians should hold office or that the war in Iraq is awesome or shitty? The propaganda and manipulation from both sides will keep anything meaningful and intelligent from even being discussed so they can continue taking bribes. If you want to improve society, you’d better have billions of dollars or a nuclear weapon because your precious vote is worth approximately dick.
DeShaun @ Nov 7th 2006 10:45AM
Haha, people playing the partisan game are funny.
Democrat, Republican...it's all semantics anyway. I love when people seem to take a strong stance to one side or another, because it's so hilariously erroneous.
Who cares what party someone is from? Maybe if people actually only took stances on issues based on their beliefs of what is good for their jurisdiction, and quit rallying to tack on bandwagon political garbage to their agendas, we'd get some people in office who give a damn.
Oh, and as far as videogame legislation...who cares. Oh no, someone wants to keep minors from buying games rated above their age limit, call the national guard! Give me a break. I don't agree when politicians want to say that violent games make for violent kids, but I do agree that a ratings guide (keyword here: GUIDE) to instruct parents on what is suggested (oh look another keyword) material for their children is a good move.
Half the people here don't even know what we're living in (We always cry democracy, yet we pledge our allegiance to the republic). I'd say video games are safe. I'll be basing my New York vote on more important things.
WedgeTalon @ Nov 7th 2006 11:05AM
DeShaun - I'm with you on that! I'm so sick of these "good ol' boys" who vote X because their daddy voted X and their daddy before them. Yeah, THAT'S a great way to choose real winners for your leaders! Hooray blind faith and ignorance!
/The only wasted vote is an informed one
FSK405K @ Nov 7th 2006 11:22AM
on Virginia's George Allen, I voted against him, but for a lot more reasons than Net Neutrality. I'll go with racism and family disclosure and if you need more you can look him up on wikipedia.
As for "weak on protecting children," I will vote for any politician who is weak on protecting children anytime, whether they're talking about mandatory school bus seat belts, bike helmets, violence, pornography, etc. (exception: child porn). I'm a centrist with libertarian leanings; I don't want my government telling me or any kids I have what we can or can't do, if our chosen activity doesn't harm another person. Look up J. S. Mill.
Wolfie @ Nov 7th 2006 11:31AM
In my opinion, although they shouldn't ban video games sales of a violent nature, having a system like we do in the UK where video games are treated in the same manner as films.
The BBFC will often step in and state that a game should be viewed by 12, 15, or 18 year olds based on a set of requirements. This is law so a shop teller cannot sell a 15 game to a 14 year old, it would be illegal.
I agree on this fully as film and video game should be treated alike. But when we get games like Manhunt and Bully over here and people try and ban it, it's wrong as it already has a legal age limit on there and if your kids go out and buy it, blame the store and not the developers.
Gamers can be from 3-83 nowadays, so if I want to buy a dirty game I should! ... I mean violent
ZeroCorpse @ Nov 7th 2006 11:56AM
Another Michigan voter here who just put in my vote for Granholm, and feels that Joystiq is SEVERELY oversimplifying politics for the sake of what most of us consider a hobby, and one we can legally partake of even if M-rated games are kept out of the hands of minors.
The issues at hand are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than some grudge against a Governor who supports bills that protect kids from obtaining M-rated content. Granholm is a parent, and a former federal prosecutor, and I respect her opinion regarding video games, even if I do not agree with it entirely. I'm certainly not going to hand the state over to a member of the DeVos family (one of the most corrupt, bigoted, elitist, neo-conservative, old-money families in the nation -in my oh-so-humble opinion) because Jennifer Granholm wants to stop Best Buy cashiers from selling her youngest child a game like Saint's Row or 25 To Life.
Legislation is needed. We regulate tobacco, firearms, pornography, alcohol, lottery, gambling and pharmaceuticals, and I'm in favor of all those things, too. The problem with current video game legislation is it seeks to punish the clerks and retailers, and doesn't do much to punish parents or the kids themselves. Punish EVERYBODY, not just the retailers, and you'll have my support.
I wouldn't want my 7-year-old niece to walk into a movie with a hard "R" rating, and I don't really think its a good idea for her to play a game in which the protagonist is constantly cursing, killing, and breaking the law. I wouldn't let a kid watch Sopranos, and I wouldn't let a kid play GTA Vice City.
But we haven't figured out how to legislate this in the same way that movies are handled. The punishments are too severe in current bills. If a theater lets a kid sneak into an R-rated movie, the punishment is usually a small fine, if anything at all. A retailer shouldn't be punished MORE for an equivalent security breach when a kid is sold an M-rated game.
Either way, even if Granholm passed a law outright banning the sale of M-rated games to anyone under 18, it wouldn't affect me at all. I'm an adult, and I'm far more concerned about major issues like health care, jobs, IMPORTANT civil rights, and separation of church and state. A Dick like DeVos will only insert HIS religious/ultra-rich views into the government and screw things up for EVERYONE. This is a guy who was born a fundamentalist Christian millionaire, and his fundamentalist Christian wife who was born a billionaire, and they are COMPLETELY UNABLE to comprehend what life is like when you have to actually EARN your living and afford health care, food, rent, and transportation in the state of Michigan.
Anybody voting for that guy over Granholm because they want 16-year-olds to be able to play 25 To Life is a jackass. DeVos doesn't care about you; He's in this to give his billionaire buddies some more tax breaks and to shove a fundamentalist agenda down our throats.
And if you think DeVos would be easy on videogames, you're wrong about that, too. He'd be WORSE than Granholm. He'd probably try to ban them outright, seeing as he's on the same side as Jack Thompson (and I believe they're acquainted, too).
funkonaut @ Nov 7th 2006 12:05PM
FSK405K, you voted against Allen "because of racism and family disclosure" while at the same time you voted for Webb, aka the smut author? Umm, ok...
Judd @ Nov 7th 2006 12:26PM
Shore- I'm voting for Edward "NJ Weedman" Forchion in the Legalize Marijuana party for Senate. http://www.njweedman.com/ It's the worst designed website ever, but this guy is funny as hell, and this isn't a joke, last year he ran for Governor.
Even if you vote for Lee Flynn(Libertarian Party), I appreciate anyone voting independent because at least they vote for someone who's views they actually believe in. I can't stand the two party system of government, in that the entire spectrum of human beliefs falls into two distinct categories. We both know that either Menendez or Tom Kean Jr. are gonna win anyway, so at least we vote for someone who's views we believe in. Though some of these party's are whacked out like, "God We Trust" or the "Solidarity, Defend Life" party. So what's the biggest disappointment of today, the Democrats don't take control of Congress, or Gears of War? Ba-doom-doom-ching.
diskoboy @ Nov 7th 2006 12:40PM
"Even if you vote for Lee Flynn(Libertarian Party), I appreciate anyone voting independent because at least they vote for someone who's views they actually believe in. I can't stand the two party system of government, in that the entire spectrum of human beliefs falls into two distinct categories."
Amen, Judd - I'm a Libertarian, myself. I hate the 2-party system and it really needs to change. Democrats or Republicans don't have anyone worth a damn to vote for.
thrall @ Nov 7th 2006 12:42PM
Vote libertarian, the third largest party in america. And I don't believe its throwing my vote away, I vote in what I believe. Libertarians are for free trade, free speech, low taxes, and freedom. I've never heard of a libertarian being against video games at all.
FSK405K @ Nov 7th 2006 12:49PM
Webb has the right background to write military smut: "Jim served in the U.S. Congress as counsel to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs from l977 to l98l, becoming the first Vietnam veteran to serve as a full committee counsel in the Congress. In 1982 he first proposed, then led the fight for, including an African American soldier in the memorial statue that now graces the Vietnam Veterans memorial on the National Mall. In 1984 he was appointed the inaugural Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, where he traveled extensively in, and worked closely with, our NATO allies. As the Assistant Secretary he directed considerable research and analysis of the U.S. military's mobilization capabilities. In 1987 he became the first Naval Academy graduate in history to serve in the military and later be appointed Secretary of the Navy. He resigned as Naval Secretary in 1988 after refusing to agree to a reduction of the Navy's force structure during congressionally-mandated budget cutting."
What has Allen done other than repeat Bushisms?
Seppo Helava @ Nov 7th 2006 2:26PM
I work in game development. I've been an avid gamer all my life. I believe games are art, and worthy of protection as free speech.
I also believe that voting based on gaming as a single issue is just about the stupidest thing you could do, and I'm ashamed that Joystiq, which I normally consider one of the best game-related blogs out there, would stoop to this level.
Gaming's acceptance as an art form is *inevitable*. As we grow up, more political figures and people in power will be incresingly game-savvy, because they are gamers themselves, or they know someone who is. This is all just temporary nonsense - sound and fury, as they say, signifying nothing. It's a cheap political trick, sure, and I despise the fact that so many politicians choose games as their target to stir up the ignorant knee-jerk reactionaries.
But the point is that it's only a matter of time before none of this matters, and because of the Constitution, none of it *really* matters, even now.
What matters *more* is understanding who will actually protect the Constitution, to ensure that our basic rights are protected. Make sure that is safe, and your games will be safe, regardless of any handwaving, publicity seeking nonsense those candidates espouse.
I would have expected better of Joystiq, but I suppose I was wrong.
OtakuCODE @ Nov 7th 2006 1:56PM
Chris Jefferson: Yes, I want them to remain legal. Violent games, violent movies, etc have never hurt anyone. Ever. Period. There is no evidence, despite decades of research and nearly endless hand-wringing by people who simply can't accept the conclusion every study comes to - fiction does not have any appreciable effect on the behavior of its consumers.
Anyone who argues for making types of fiction illegal is, at best, a fool, and at worst (and most populous in America) a powermongering idiot who will back any idea that gives them more power and the citizens less.
Parents should be the arbiter in what their kids watch/play. If kids sneak around and defy their parents, this is not a problem because there is absolutely no harm done.
Gag @ Nov 7th 2006 2:06PM
Wasting your vote for a Libertarian, people who are basically Republicans but refuse to admit so and thus waste everyone's time, just like the Greens are basically Democrats, just a crapload whinier and more irrelevant, is definitely not the right thing to do. At the end of the day, the party that tries to legislate morality is the Republican party. And by no means, should gaming be the only issue you care about. Arnold had no choice but to move to the center, that's why he signed that gaming bill. And how is it a bad law anyway? Let's be responsible thinkers here, eventually we're going to be parents ourselves. Joe Loserman is a dolt and an imbecile and as already pointed out, is a DINO and deserves to be destroyed by Ned Lamont later this evening. Hillary has to look tough on moral issues and family values for 08 if she decides to run, that's why she acts that way on gaming issues. The Illinois and Michigan governors have been good for their states, at the end of the day, if they sign those kinds of gaming bills, unless they are unconstitutional, we have no right to act as a special interest and try to overrule what the people and their reps want.
You folks in Virginia, vote for Jim Webb. Im just going to be overt, since Libertarians decided to waste everyone's time and make their presence known. All that happens when you vote for a Libertarian is basically nothing of benefit. You look like part of an irrelevant, worthless minority, and you basically take away votes from people who really deserve them, like the republicans who actually share your values.
Gonzo @ Nov 7th 2006 4:11PM
I actually think many of Hillary's other ideas are great, like (even though she's a senator) pushing for there to be a raise in the minimum wage every time the senate decides they need a pay raise. It's too bad she has to be one of these lazy "blame whatever's entertaining the kids" bums. As a NYer I'm tempted to write in that vote (especially when I consider Hillary's challenger)... I think I'll write in Cliffy B.
calthaer @ Nov 7th 2006 4:31PM
@ #7 - yeah, shame on Joystiq for bringing up that super-insignificant political issue known as freedom of speech. They're such losers, right? I mean, who needs the Bill of Rights?
tbone @ Nov 7th 2006 4:33PM
@35
Wasting vote on a libertarian? Isn't every vote that didn't vote for a winner part of a "worthless minority"? Republicans and dems are all the same, and i think its good to vote third party to show your support and eventually have a 3 party system.
To the english guy- The ESRB is a PRIVATE organization, and i'd like it to stay that way. It's up to retailers whether or not to sell it to minors. I think it should stay left up to the free market and to parental responsibility.
For example if Gamestop started got rid of thier rules, and allowed 12 year olds to buy grand theft auto, then as soon as a parent found out, they would go to Gamestop and say "I'm not buying from you until you put rules back in place regarding mature games, and i'm gonna tell other people not to shop here. " They could even go as far as to protest it.
Freedom is always the answer, you don't need to use government to FORCE other people to do what you think is right.
Seer S @ Nov 7th 2006 5:17PM
fyi midterms occur every four years, not two.
otakucode @ Nov 7th 2006 5:53PM
Gag: A vote for a third party is not wasted. If the third parties make a showing, even if they do not win, the existing parties will have to listen. The last thing they want is to have their exclusive hold on power to be broken. They've worked together for decades consolidating power and making it look like they disagree on things when in reality all they seek is more power and they understand the best way to do this is to agree to always get more and whoever wins the elections gets to play with it for awhile. Why do you think the public gets pissed off, votes a party out, another party gets in.... and not a SINGLE piece of legislation is retracted?
Alex @ Nov 8th 2006 12:38AM
So basically Kyle, you're proposing people who 18+ therefore old enough to vote should be concerned with politicians trying to make it so minors, or 17 and younger, can't buy GTA?
I don't see how it would concern anyone who would be voting.
Unless they thing 11 year olds should be able to play GTA?
Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo @ Nov 9th 2006 7:56AM
Maybe it's just me but I'm not entirely sure how someone trying to pass a law to keep minors from buying adult rated games makes them "anti-game".
Why do we even have the ESRB? Some would say it's so parents know what to/not to buy their kids and it's the parent's responsibility. While true, the simple fact is that many (? most) parents out there aren't responsible (anyone ever gone by a Libby-Loo at their local mall?).
I'm a doctor and I've seen all kinds of families. It's easy for us who come from stable, middle class households to say "It's up to the parents."
Quite frankly many parents either aren't willing (or, in some cases, simply aren't able) to monitor everything their kids do/buy.
Why do we limit kids' access to pornography? Is that *gasp* censorship?
Can someone give me a good, well reasoned argument why a 12 year old SHOULD be able to buy 'Grand Theft Auto' but not 'Debby Does Dallas'? Or should we just say "It's up to the parents to keep porn out of the children's hands so let's do away with minimum age laws"?
Personally, I think developers should be able to make games as lewd, crude and violent as they want. That's their constitutional right and it's my right as an adult member of our society to buy it or not. Making laws to keep minors from buying said game is NOT censorship. Not letting the developer make said game IS.
chimchim @ Nov 8th 2006 1:44AM
The issue of restricting games in the U.S. reaches farther than the laws themselves state. There are currently zero restrictions on selling video games to minors and yet if I walk into Target, Walmart, or any other retailer in my town they will ask to see my ID (I'm 19). The reason for this is simply that retailers want to be publicly precieved as "family friendly" and will always go at least one step above the law to mantain that status. If we all of a sudden get a swarm of legal requirements on video games then these stores no longer have clout in the area of "protecting the children" with a PR campaign of "we do the bare minimum required by law" so they impose their own regulations that might be as severe as not selling M rated games at all (it might seem far fetched but keep in mind that you can't buy parental advisory CDs at Walmart). This would then put pressure on developers who would be forced to sacrifice their vision to keep the ratings at T or lower. The issue is much larger than it is presented and to be honest regardless of who you vote for the real consequences of these bills are likely ignored by the people voting on them but it is something to keep in mind.