What the 2006 midterm means for gamers
by Ross Miller 
{ Nov 9th 2006 at 6:20PM }
The US midterm elections have come and gone, and while most to all voters don't consider gaming their primary concern (as if foreign policy or the economy are really more important), how interactive entertainment will be regulated has an enormous impact on who retained, gained, or lost a seat in Congress.Wired's Chris Kohler outlines some of the major elections, in terms of video game censorship and regulation, and analyzes the long-term impact. Those with even a slight concern with politics should check out the article for at least a refresher course on what Congress representative Y has the games industry in his or her crosshairs.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Petrie @ Nov 9th 2006 6:26PM
"how interactive entertainment will be regulated has an enormous impact on who retained, gained, or lost a seat in Congress."
Shouldn't that be reversed?
ackmondual @ Nov 9th 2006 7:09PM
It seems nothing major so far against vid game industry. Well, GTA series and Rockstar is poised to take further hits from legislation, but I don't play those games anyways. Not so much b/c I agree with these restrictions, bupt mostly b/c I don't have a PS2 and have plenty of other games on my PC.
I do shudder to think if games like Mortal Kombat, other violent/gory, or sexually explicit themed games are labelled as bad as cigarettes are, but as long as these types of themes pass in theatres (anyone up for more Saw I, II, & III), we'll be fine
AJ @ Nov 9th 2006 7:04PM
So they'll stop 6 year olds from buying M games, OH MY GOD the world will end. Miss Clinton isn't on a vendetta because they have this content, she is on a vendetta because they lied about this content. If they had been like look, with a cheat you can do this and they got the propper rating no one would care.
Frankie @ Nov 9th 2006 7:04PM
all i know is that the very illusive Rick "man on dog" Santorum video game featuring man on dog sex will now be able to finally happen.
WatTsu @ Nov 9th 2006 8:17PM
Newsflash: There really aren't any pro-game politicians, so if that's an important issue to you you're pretty much hosed.
And I sincerely hope there weren't many people who made that their main voting issue.
nick @ Nov 9th 2006 7:08PM
Pretty simple. More taxes means less games.
Negativecool @ Nov 9th 2006 7:10PM
Joe Lieberman will spread his ridiculous campaign against videogames and will spread unwarranted fear throughout the Democrats in congress. All of the democrats will follow his lead for fear of the next elections mud slinging campaign “Congressman […] voted against saving your innocent children from murder simulators!” Leading to many a restrictive bill, ushering in the downfall of the great video game era….
You heard it here first.
J.Goodwin @ Nov 9th 2006 7:14PM
Hillary and Joe are on the wrong side of the Democratic party on all this stuff, and on the issues that actually matter to the American people as well (the war chief among them, but other things too).
As senators in the ruling party, these guys are going to be under heavy pressure to actually toe the line and stop their flights of fancy photo-ops with Republicans. I predict that the war on video games is going to be getting very quiet very soon.
otakucode @ Nov 9th 2006 7:31PM
It doesn't matter who gets elected. You all just sit back and watch. Not one single thing the republicans did will be repealed. Anything that results in more power for them and less power for us gets a YES vote, and that is the ONLY thing any representative considers. So long as people aren't voting third party, the Big Two know that as long as everyone plays ball, when they eventually do get back into office they'll have new power to play with.
otakucode @ Nov 9th 2006 7:38PM
AJ: So censorship is fine if things aren't banned, but simply ruined?
ackmondual: The reason things like Saw I, II, and III show up in theaters is because the government is NOT involved in ANY way in rating movies. It is not against the law to sell a kid a ticket to a rated R movie. Why you think regulation done by the government will be the same as regulation not done by the government is beyond me. Right now, the ESRB is an insanely conservative version of the MPAA ratings board. Things that could get a PG-13 rating make a game instantly M. Things that would be OK in an R rated movie couldn't hope for an M rating after Hot Coffee and such.
Parents don't sit down and think things through like "How will my kid playing a game with violence/nudity in it ACTUALLY affect the kid?", they just go with gut feelings and right now their gut is saying 'these game things are scary, they can brainwash kids, RUN AWAY RUN AWAY'. Politicians just hear "Please increase your power over me. Please regulate entertainment. I won't put up a fight, and there are more of me than there are of those filthy game players and they won't fight that hard anyways, they already totally caved into ratings without a fight".
Books aren't rated. Games and movies shouldn't be either. Content labels are fine. A board of who-know-who should not be trying to dictate at what age certain content is or is not appropriate. That is a parents job. If the parents fall down on the job or the kid circumvents them, there is no harm done anyway.
Mr. Khan @ Nov 9th 2006 7:42PM
A very broad range of political opinions here; interesting
And I wouldn't worry; Nick. Dems controlling congress with Bush at the helm almost insures nothing significant will happen, Bush will become a Lame Duck, and the Checks and Balances will mean both Congress and President will be Crippled. And even IF new taxes were passed, I would only worry about them if you are either A: Richer than fuck or B: making a killing in the stock market
redsoxfan24 @ Nov 9th 2006 7:58PM
Don't blame me, I voted for Lamont.
AJ @ Nov 9th 2006 8:27PM
"9. AJ: So censorship is fine if things aren't banned, but simply ruined?"
how are things ruined? the label says Ao instead of M?
ZaBlanc @ Nov 9th 2006 8:48PM
#4
You need to update your political books. Taxes don't fly anymore. Saying the Democrats will tax up the wazoo is like saying the Republicans won't get involved in your private life.
nintendo fan @ Nov 9th 2006 9:08PM
I think i'm going to cry.
otakucode @ Nov 9th 2006 10:15PM
AJ: Game companies do not make AO games. They will not do it because it would destroy their ability to market the game, so when a game gets an AO rating, it is re-cut, censored, and ruined in order to get an M rating.
More often than not, however, games are censored in order to get a T rating rather than M, because that is where they think they can really make some cash. It's like all the action movies that come out rated PG-13 devoid of blood or visceral violence. It makes violence a pop culture phenomena and removes all of the 'icky' reality from the equation. It ruins the movies and robs them of the impact they should have.
polly @ Nov 9th 2006 11:03PM
Now that they've secured majorities in the Senate and the House, video game laws (ie family values posturing) will take a back seat. We all know the courts will just shoot them down anyways. I think the Dems will be more interested in actually putting forth meaningful legislation (a la the "first 100 hours" promises) now that they are the ones who can push whatever they want through Congress. Yes, meaningful legislation that will be promptly squashed by Bush's veto. Enjoy the show!
sgt_goomba @ Nov 10th 2006 4:38AM
As much as I love video games, one phrase comes to mind everytime I read these get out the gamer vote articles: get a life. Believe it or not there are more important issues going on in this world than video game censorship. Hell, I'd vote for Jack Thompson if he was the only anti-war politician available. Video game issues had no bearing on my vote.
Spekkio @ Nov 10th 2006 5:53AM
The Democratic Party has no intention of raising taxes on anyone except the wealthy. Unless you're making over $200K a year, you haven't anything to worry about. And it's also worth noting (the numbers are out there if you care to look) that the economy does better with Dems running the show. The "interactive entertainment" industry stands chance of doing better instead of worse.
As for Senator Lieberman, the Democrats aren't going to be following his lead anytime soon.
Tukka @ Nov 10th 2006 11:50AM
otakucode: Perfectly said. You summed it up right there.
WatTsu: While there may not be any "pro-games" politicians and I wouldn't expect there to be (well, until the video game industry starts lobbying harder than it has been), I do expect there to be PRO-FREE SPEECH politicians.
What's unfortunate is that upholding the Constitution doesn't seem to be a very popular political stance anymore. I'm afraid that one of these days they'll edit the first amendment to read "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" I'm sure that would win the vote of every soccer mom in the country.
WatTsu @ Nov 10th 2006 1:55PM
Tukka: Playing to people's fears gets votes. People are afraid of games (largely because they don't understand them). They see little Suzie on her Playstation backing over pedestrians and peeling out, leaving bloody smears on the pavement. They're afraid of what games have become and what they may do to their kids (and if they were any kind of parents, they'd have taken the game away). It's not a free speech issue, it's a morality issue for them. And, naturally, for most politicians it's easier to talk about morality than it is free speech, because morality can't backfire in electoral terms.
Politics is a job. And just like you'd work to keep your job, they'll work to keep theirs. Video games work because they're a convenient moral scapegoat that people freak out over. Remember, politicians technically have to do what their constituents tell them to do if they want to keep their job. If their constituents are concerned about games, well, there you go.
But you are right. Free speech does go out the window in terms of protecting the kiddies. The debate then goes to what should be protected under free speech and what shouldn't, and that's a debate that nobody ever really wins.
Sarge @ Nov 10th 2006 7:24PM
Well, not that this really matters. We've got more to worry about than video game legislation, for crying out loud. Priorities include immigration, Iraq, taxes, and Social Security reform, on top of many other issues that are being passed on.
Honestly, I hope the Democrats actually do something about those first, as opposed to this, or trying to investigate every single thing that may or may not have happened in the war to date. They were elected because they said they could fix Iraq. Let's see some action.
Really, I've never seen the big deal over the new legislation. All people point to is R rated movies and such, but should kids be seeing those, either? You have to put things in place to cover for the parents, within reason, because even a perfect parent can't watch their kid ALL the time. It wouldn't restrict the sale of the games to those entitled to it.
Sarge out.