Hilary Clinton Sure She's Going To Be President; Also, Candidates Talk Regulation

[MyNameIsWill]

Consider the responses: (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080101-gamers-potus-candidates-hate-you-for-your-freedoms.html)



Obama: "But if the industry fails to act, then my administration would."
Richardson: "I would consider this legislation."

Edwards: "If the industry does not continue to make progress in keeping video games with intense violent and adult content away from children, we will need to consider further steps."

Clinton: [After long discussion of her support for the Family Entertainment Protection Act] "When I am president, I will work to protect children from inappropriate video game content."

[magnet]

Seriously, is this the first time you've ever read a political transcript?


They will not work in my White House and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.


I promise you that when I am president of the United States we will not have a mine company executive who is responsible for the safety of mine workers


Doing something about this practice has been one of my top priorities as chair of the Senate Banking Committee — and it will continue to be a priority when I am President.


It is unconscionable, then, that George Bush and the Republicans in Congress have spent the six years since 9/11 ignoring the professional and personal needs of first responders and trying to under-fund and eliminate the very programs that keep us safe.

When I am President, that will change.


I have that experience and it will prove invaluable when I am president.

.. etc.

[NoWayJose]

They all say that.


Mr. Edwards spoke for about ten minutes to union members and supporters who gathered outside the Mellon sports arena here. He used the opportunity to highlight his health care plan, trade policies and the issue of safety for mine workers in the wake of the Utah mine disaster.

“I promise you that when I am president of the United States we will not have a mine company executive

Tancredo said he died because of too restrictive rules of engagement. "When I am president, I will never, ever, ever send anyone into harm's way
Etc. I'm too tired and bored to keep making this point, but they all say it. Get your panties in a bunch about something else.

Oh good someone else already listed more.

[magnet]

Even Mike Gravel!


When I am president, I will open up all secret files relating to the Iraq war and expose all officials who lied to the public in promoting it. (That's right, Dick, your files too.)

[MyNameIsWill]

Okay... let's talk about the regulation then :)

[Anti-Bunny]

Well, I hope she's made president, soon. Little timmy must be saved from Grand Theft Auto 4!!

[Brian Rucker]

I'm starting to think gamers are libertarians for the same reason gun owners are Republicans. Whatever it takes to make sure the grownups don't take our lead-lined toys away.

That said, there are no conclusive studies or collections of studies that show gaming causes violence to a larger degree than other media and ultimately the Democrats tend to be more responsive to logic than Republicans (as we've seen demonstrated with painful clarity over the past seven years). Sure, they pick on games and gamers - but why? Because it's the Republican Party pounding on family values over and over and over again. This is a low hanging fruit. When we gamers can't even persuasively argue there's any artistic or social merit in games, and some of us protectively hammer away at that point, how can we turn around and preach 1st Amendment?

Exactly what are our games contributing to the marketplace of ideas? And before you go there, I do think the same applies to Hustler. The cases they won, and rightly so, were over specific and narrow incidents that did have broader merit.

So Democrats, of course, are going to go after us. I think that's because they assume we're young and not particularly politically aware. Easy targets. But ask any Republican candidate the same question and, with the exception of Ron Paul (possibly), you're going to get the same answer with added pomposity, fire and brimstone.

[Anti-Bunny]

I'm starting to think gamers are libertarians for the same reason gun owners are Republicans. Whatever it takes to make sure the grownups don't take our lead-lined toys away.

Democrats say this a lot, that guns are just expensive toys, and I'm sure they are for plenty of people, but I don't think that's why Republicans in general are so passionate on the 2nd amendment.

[Brian Rucker]

I'm pretty sure it us unless they really believe they're going to need to overthrow the Federal Goverment sometime soon. But let's not litigate the 2nd Amendment in this thread. Been done in other threads and, as with the religion thing, nobody is going to walk away happy or changed.

[Anti-Bunny]

I'm pretty sure it us unless they really believe they're going to need to overthrow the Federal Goverment sometime soon. But let's not litigate the 2nd Amendment in this thread. Been done in other threads and, as with the religion thing, nobody is going to walk away happy or changed.
Yeah, those are the only two reasons to own a gun. For fun, or to overthrow the government. There's no more to be said there, agreed. PS, Jesus is your savor and you're going to hell for not agreeing you heathen, but LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THAT, OKAY?

[Glenn]

Well, I hope she's made president, soon. Little timmy must be saved from Grand Theft Auto 4!!You're going to be put in a real awkward position if the Republican candidate ends up being anyone but Giuliani, huh?

[hong]

Interestingly, the first hit for www.google.com/search?q=when+i+am+president is www.president.am, the website for the president of America.

[Anti-Bunny]

You're going to be put in a real awkward position if the Republican candidate ends up being anyone but Giuliani, huh?
When did I say I was supporting ANY republican candidate?

[Glenn]

When did I say I was supporting ANY republican candidate?OH YOU'RE SO COY.

[Lizard_King]

I'm starting to think gamers are libertarians for the same reason gun owners are Republicans. Whatever it takes to make sure the grownups don't take our lead-lined toys away.

That said, there are no conclusive studies or collections of studies that show gaming causes violence to a larger degree than other media and ultimately the Democrats tend to be more responsive to logic than Republicans (as we've seen demonstrated with painful clarity over the past seven years). Sure, they pick on games and gamers - but why? Because it's the Republican Party pounding on family values over and over and over again. This is a low hanging fruit. When we gamers can't even persuasively argue there's any artistic or social merit in games, and some of us protectively hammer away at that point, how can we turn around and preach 1st Amendment?

Exactly what are our games contributing to the marketplace of ideas? And before you go there, I do think the same applies to Hustler. The cases they won, and rightly so, were over specific and narrow incidents that did have broader merit.

So Democrats, of course, are going to go after us. I think that's because they assume we're young and not particularly politically aware. Easy targets. But ask any Republican candidate the same question and, with the exception of Ron Paul (possibly), you're going to get the same answer with added pomposity, fire and brimstone.

So what exactly is your point here? That Democrats supporting video game legislation pandering to social conservatives and morons should get a pass because the party that has its grassroots composed of those elements would also say the same dumb things?

It's not going to be a swing issue for me, but I don't think there's anything wrong with calling them out on how wrong they are on that regardless of what Huckabee promised his latest congregation/rally.

As an aside, the real problem here is not the pandering of the candidates. The real problem here is the apparent inability/lack of desire of the industry to develop a serious special interest group capable of persuading and bribing their way into a dominantly liberal (in the classical sense) position on the issue. That suggests to me that my interest in seeing mature content in videogames, whether expressed constructively or not, does not have the momentum that I wish it did.

If that's not the case, I'd love to see the industry groups stop pussyfooting around with Jack Thompson and other loudmouths and sit down and read the NRA/AARP/RIAA playbook.

[Gordon Cameron]

When we gamers can't even persuasively argue there's any artistic or social merit in games, and some of us protectively hammer away at that point, how can we turn around and preach 1st Amendment?

I'm not aware of any artistic or social merit in pornography, but haven't there been some successes getting 1st Amendment protection for that?

[Lizard_King]

I'm not aware of any artistic or social merit in pornography, but haven't there been some successes getting 1st Amendment protection for that?
Restrictions on freedom of speech are generally only constitutional within "reasonable" constraints of time, manner, and place. That is, as opposed to content per se. The general rule set can be reduced in instances where obscenity (as a legal term it is in a constantly battled set war with mere indecency, and is much narrower than most people would think) can be established, which as of the Miller case has been mostly constrained as a local standards issue (that's where the artistic/scientific test comes from).

None of which applies to 99% of the videogames which people hyperventilate about, which is why it is particularly irritating to see the Miller test being invoked left and right when it is only useful for badly reasoned hyperbole. Theoretical possible mind warping is not a standard for obscenity, and it's not a good standard for onerous legislation.

What's really at stake in this matter is the brazen attempt to make mature video games less marketable through legal hindrances, and therefore intimidate companies from pursuing such options regardless of their motives. It's not just about the children, and it's not just going after them.

[Brian Rucker]

There have been but the decisions were narrowly written, if I'm recalling correctly. Which I might not be.

I was trying to make a few points actually:

If gamers take awesome pride in games having no worthwhile content aside from amusement then the idea of them contributing to the marketplace of ideas, that thing the 1st Amendment is really there to protect, seems moot to me. Of course, ideally, I'd like to see more games designed with higher ambitions than simply moving boxes. Then we'll have something we can show and tell when we're sitting in front of a Congressional panel.

Another point is that it cracks me up seeing people getting all huffy about Democrats, and only Democrats, when it comes to proposed (or merely threatened) videogame legislation. It's nutbags like Falwell that got this whole ball rolling, in contemporary politics, with attacks on all popular culture and the Republicans have never slacked off once since. I guess because they're against so many different things they disapprove of, morally and profoundly, it all tends to blur together.

What I'd actually like to see are some studies that tell us once and for all, what is, or isn't, going on here. Until that's done all of this really is so much bloviating from all sides. If real harm's being done then regulation ain't all that nutty as much as it might be unfashionable to say so. If not, then fine. The Democrats will at least probably shut up about it. Republicans answer to a higher, or at least different, authority than observable reality if the last seven years are any litmus test.

[Lizard_King]

If gamers take awesome pride in games having no worthwhile content aside from amusement then the idea of them contributing to the marketplace of ideas, that thing the 1st Amendment is really there to protect, seems moot to me. Of course, ideally, I'd like to see more games designed with higher ambitions than simply moving boxes. Then we'll have something we can show and tell when we're sitting in front of a Congressional panel.
That's a really terrible definition of what the first amendment is for. You have basically created an arbitrary "worthwhile content" standard for all media, not just that which is in flagrant violation of an obscenity standard, which is a local matter and a very specific one that a videogame is unlikely to cross.

Its an invitation to forcing the tastes of the majority or, potentially worse, just a heavily invested minority on the general public, and it flies in the face of the intent behind the first amendment imo. I'm surprised to see you say that kind of thing, period, but moreso in the context of a supposed defense of videogames.


Another point is that it cracks me up seeing people getting all huffy about Democrats, and only Democrats, when it comes to proposed (or merely threatened) videogame legislation. It's nutbags like Falwell that got this whole ball rolling, in contemporary politics, with attacks on all popular culture and the Republicans have never slacked off once since. I guess because they're against so many different things they disapprove of, morally and profoundly, it all tends to blur together.
Well, I for one get "huffy" about it because voting for a Falwell or a Falwell-soundalike was never a possibility for me, whereas voting for Hillary is. I don't care if others are worse about it, I care when the candidates I want to consider for my vote take the issue and make a complete mess of it. Set aside the vote issue, and it bothers me when candidates do a simple cost benefit analysis on stupid-driven policy movements like this one and decide to check some boxes in the SAVE OUR CHILDREN hysteria column at the expense of what they regard as an unimportant demographic.

It's an unfortunate turn, because it leaves you with the option that either the candidates in question are even less principled than you'd be willing to allow for, or that they are stupid enough to believe the hype. Neither is a happy outcome, especially at the possible expense of one of my favorite pastimes.


What I'd actually like to see are some studies that tell us once and for all, what is, or isn't, going on here. Until that's done all of this really is so much bloviating from all sides. If real harm's being done then regulation ain't all that nutty as much as it might be unfashionable to say so. If not, then fine. The Democrats will at least probably shut up about it. Republicans answer to a higher, or at least different authority, than observable reality if the last seven years are any litmus test.
No, they won't. No one will shut up about so long as abdicating responsibility for your children is a marketable policy issue. The current state of the issue in legislation is obviously not guided by any sort of scientific interest...why on earth do you think an inherently populist and demagogue-friendly issue like this one would evolve so rationally all of a sudden?

[Brian Rucker]

Because they have before. The media and law enforcement didn't get off tabletop RPing's back until scientific studies came out that showed there was no harm done. That was spread around both by GAMA and player groups. Nobody's seriously come after tabletop RPGs since.

And don't be so coy about the first amendment. Yes, you can point out the legalese parsing but the reality behind it is that free speech is healthy for a society because it contributes to political and cultural discourse. The principle is the more ideas that are out there the better we can sift through them. The alternative, censorship, is generally worse. But if most of what's out there, in terms of popular games, is just so much mental confection with some really nasty undertones - who's going to take it seriously?

Even porn takes forms more established media feel a need to protect because legislation that limits it could, potentially, come around to bite them too. Amicus brief time. But video games? Those puppies are on their own. Just toys for teenage kids. I'd say that's an incorrect impression, based on every study out there, but it's certainly the one the industry seems to present. Boobies, firearms and pretty graphics. Just like FOX news.

[Lizard_King]

Because they have before. The media and law enforcement didn't get off tabletop RPing's back until scientific studies came out that showed there was no harm done. That was spread around both by GAMA and player groups. Nobody's seriously come after tabletop RPGs since.

It wasn't the research that convinced them. It was the next big thing that got them off its back, and the fact that it eventually moved to something of a different niche thereafter. So in that sense, you're right. What videogames really need is that some other form of entertainment rise up (hopefully one I don't like) to distract the Family Values crowd, because that's what works. Otherwise the attacks continue to come in cycles, because the people that drive them are never going to be convinced because they don't respond to science.


And don't be so coy about the first amendment. Yes, you can point out the legalese parsing but the reality behind it is that free speech is healthy for a society because it contributes to political and cultural discourse. The principle is the more ideas that are out there the better we can sift through them. The alternative, censorship, is generally worse. But if most of what's out there, in terms of popular games, is just so much mental confection with some really nasty undertones - who's going to take it seriously?
Coy? I'm going to restrain myself and just say that I find your idea utilitarianism a reprehensible and wrong argument, and a point of view that means you really need to reconsider where you stand on this issue and a number of others. The burden of proof isn't on the artist or creator unless they are in some time/manner/place directly and publicly committing obscene acts. That's the only time that burden is shifted. That's not legalese, that's the punchline of the first amendment that you seem uninterested in as established by the cases surrounding the issue.

To paraphrase a quote incorrectly attributed to Voltaire, I don't take many artists, writers, and filmmakers seriously, but I think their right to do their thing unmolested and be reasonably accessed by an audience that is interested is worth killing over.


Even porn takes forms more established media feel a need to protect because legislation that limits it could, potentially, come around to bite them too. Amicus brief time. But video games? Those puppies are on their own. Just toys for teenage kids. I'd say that's an incorrect impression, based on every study out there, but it's certainly the one the industry seems to present. Boobies, firearms and pretty graphics. Just like FOX news.
Porn just has the benefit of being a more mature industry with a track record of defending itself already established. If video game makers could stop rolling over and baring their throats every time a Christian Coalition appeaser says "boo", I think a resulting supreme court case would be progress. But I wouldn't be surprised if the SCOTUS' reaction were "Hey we resolved this shit a while ago, find a new witch to burn, you fucking idiots". And the point of the precedents established by other art forms is not that each new or different form has to prove its worthiness to be extended the same protections; the point is that the protections that exist are so overwhelmingly appropriate for video games as well that their detractors have to come up with the sort of specious reasoning that you seem to have embraced wholeheartedly.

Titillation and violence? The same incisive brand of analysis could (and has been) wrongly applied to photographers, moviemakers and musicians. And it was just as irrelevant to their right to make their product as it is now. Wal Mart can refuse to sell it, but that's not the same as senators gathering up their legislative lynch mob for another round of "blame our shitty parenting on the other guy".

[Brian Rucker]

Look, you're trying real hard to sound like a real politik kind of guy so understand the real politik here is that video games aren't seen, obviously, in the same light as other media which is why they are singled out and beaten upon even by Democrats who are otherwise big First Amendment boosters.

You can say, without any substantiation whatsoever, that scientific studies put into the hands of law enforcement and the media by the game manufacturer's association and player groups had no effect. I know for a fact that it did because I was there. While the group I belonged to seemed a little flakey even to me at the time, CARP-GA "Committee for the Advancement of Roleplaying Games" possessed of a grandious title that's really too precious for its own good, I was distributing material, writing letters to editors and even appeared (after I'd quit to go to college and was drafted back in just this once) on local TV to appear opposite Pat Pulling of BADD.

I saw the difference, I read the material that was being distributed, and I saw the change in coverage. Was it anywhere near being a major issue for anyone else? Probably not. The 80's were a screwed up mess on a whole lot of fronts. The battle was mostly won by the late 80's, maybe '89, when I did my little swansong. But it did serve its purpose and the industry, if not precisely turning its image around, did stave off a highly successful and influential attempt to shut it down.

No scientific study. No ammo. Blathering. That's all you have. And cynical wishfulfillment. "Why oh why can't we have the influence of the AARP?" *sniffle* Because nobody cares. Nobody who'll do anything. Even the industry types know they can't count on their counterparts in other media to back them up. Instead, video games are the scapegoats:

"Sure violence and sexual content from our network/label/studio is bad but, hey, it's not like we're Grand Theft Auto or anything, am I right? We're marketing to adults anyhow - those guys are selling that trash to kids. We are not the droids you are looking for."

You want to win this, guy, you need to win it with the media. That takes actual information. News. Facts. I know I give the popular media crap all the time for its wishywashy handling of reality but it's all you've got.

We get games, primarly videogames - the most prevalent form and also the most sorely lacking, with worthwhile content and studies that show videogames do no harm or no more harm than anything else - and then you've got your ammo. Until then. Handwringing. Moaning. Complaining. All you're gonna get.

[Ranulf]

Wait, what? News, facts, actual information to "win it in the media"? Now who's being naive?

[madkevin]

I think another major factor to the inevitable calming-down of parental outrage over any given new media is simply time. Eventually, people start to notice that the majority of kids are reading comics (or playing games or whatever), but that majority are not turning into psychopathic killbots.

[Brian Rucker]

Gamers have been here before. Much less funded, insignificant in terms of population or economic impact. We won with facts and by getting them into the media.

Maybe things are different now, the media's a helluva lot more pissant and skittish around its role as truthteller than it used to be, or maybe studies will show that video games do cause harm to kids. Could be this won't work a second time.

But it's what worked before. Maybe it's that roleplaying actually took a bit more effort to participate in in the first place and roleplayers, some of them, were willing to engage on their own. Maybe GAMA actually had its shit together much more than the big gaming/entertainment companies do now.

Still, handwringing ain't going to cut it. Wishing upon a star that somehow someone would believe video games enjoy the same protections that other media do, whether they should or not, isn't going to cut it.

You need facts, you need outreach and you need to turn the media tide. Show those phony demogogues up for what they are - if they are phony. Only one way to do that. Proof. Studies. Facts.

Maybe it won't work anymore but that's more an indictment of the press than anything else. It did work once.

[Lizard_King]

Look, you're trying real hard to sound like a real politik kind of guy so understand the real politik here is that video games aren't seen, obviously, in the same light as other media which is why they are singled out and beaten upon even by Democrats who are otherwise big First Amendment boosters.
Is that what I'm trying real hard to sound like? Thanks for the pointers.


You can say, without any substantiation whatsoever, that scientific studies put into the hands of law enforcement and the media by the game manufacturer's association and player groups had no effect. I know for a fact that it did because I was there. While the group I belonged to seemed a little flakey even to me at the time, CARP-GA "Committee for the Advancement of Roleplaying Games" possessed of a grandious title that's really too precious for its own good, I was distributing material, writing letters to editors and even appeared (after I'd quit to go to college and was drafted back in just this once) on local TV to appear opposite Pat Pulling of BADD.

I saw the difference, I read the material that was being distributed, and I saw the change in coverage. Was it anywhere near being a major issue for anyone else? Probably not. The 80's were a screwed up mess on a whole lot of fronts. The battle was mostly won by the late 80's, maybe '89, when I did my little swansong. But it did serve its purpose and the industry, if not precisely turning its image around, did stave off a highly successful and influential attempt to shut it down.
Yeah, wow, that's really exciting that your niche hobby was able to defend itself from its niche attackers back in the good old days. What actually happened there was not the triumph of science, but the effective mobilization of a special interest group in order to neutralize the groups against it in the political cost benefit analysis. I guarantee you none of the people convinced that RPG's were bad were swayed by science to the contrary. They just found unexpected levels of opposition from a vocal enough group that was willing to engage them consistently.

Meanwhile, video games now are trapped in a cycle where they continually downgrade the level of content acceptable for mature audiences, get called out again on something controversial, and then downgrade again "voluntarily".


No scientific study. No ammo. Blathering. That's all you have. And cynical wishfulfillment. "Why oh why can't we have the influence of the AARP?" *sniffle* Because nobody cares. Nobody who'll do anything. Even the industry types know they can't count on their counterparts in other media to back them up. Instead, video games are the scapegoats:

"Sure violence and sexual content from our network/label/studio is bad but, hey, it's not like we're Grand Theft Auto or anything, am I right? We're marketing to adults anyhow - those guys are selling that trash to kids. We are not the droids you are looking for."
I'm sniffling? You know what? Fuck you, Brian. Right around when you started talking about the "worthiness" of the entertainment those damned kids love so much is when you needed to subtract yourself from the discussion. By attempting to reason on the terms of social conservatives, you've allowed them to shift the goalposts to standards that shouldn't apply to any art form, let alone one in its infancy, and become part of the problem.

This is where the corollary to my Rudy theory comes in: if you find yourself engaging one of the arguments he's made through the years on his terms, you probably need to reevaluate your thought process. Ask Mapplethorpe (well, if he were alive) who should be judging his art's worth.


You want to win this, guy, you need to win it with the media. That takes actual information. News. Facts. I know I give the popular media crap all the time for its wishywashy handling of reality but it's all you've got.

We get games, primarly videogames - the most prevalent form and also the most sorely lacking, with worthwhile content and studies that show videogames do no harm or no more harm than anything else - and then you've got your ammo. Until then. Handwringing. Moaning. Complaining. All you're gonna get.
Don't give me protips, Rucker. The problem is exactly that sort of compromised bullshit. It's been a problem since the first social engineer decided he should tell other people how they should be entertained by law: you can't deal with fundamental subversions of constitutional intent as if they are honestly conducted differences of opinion. And the only way victories are won is when they are engaged on the terms of the first amendment correctly, whether by reasonable, decent people or by a Larry Flynt. Otherwise, all you get is a temporary ceasefire while the self appointed arbiters of media begin their next move.

Gaming is now a multi billion dollar industry. The question is whether it values its creative liberties enough to invest in a future that way, because this question will not be resolved by pundits on TV. Those morons will do as they are told. The question will be resolved by which special interests work most effectively to play the game, and that's a simple question of money and strategic thinking. You don't even need to look at the obviously successful lobbies; even the murky ones like tobacco have plenty to teach.

You want to make sure GTA4 isn't being purchased by ten year olds? I'm with you all the way. There's a lot of genuine discussions to be had about how best to rate games and distribute them. But what you don't seem to realize is that the people driving Hillary to say these kinds of things are looking to set up distribution legislatively in a manner that prevents games they find objectionable from even being made. They can have their Chronicles of Narnia, just so long as the R-rated movies still exist in a reasonably accessible manner for me to go to.

GTA and countless other games have proven that limited forms of maturity and controversy are marketable. Now the onus is upon those same people that made all that money off it to ensure that we don't find ourselves steadily sliding towards a blander, Christian Coalition approved future. And if you get the chance to call out a few of these candidates by making a stink about these sort of moves, that's not going to hurt a thing.

[Brian Rucker]

guarantee you none of the people convinced that RPG's were bad were swayed by science to the contrary. They just found unexpected levels of opposition from a vocal enough group that was willing to engage them consistently.

The people who mattered were the undecided public who were only hearing from one side of the spectrum, for a long time unchallenged. They didn't know the stuff they were told might not be true. The media sure didn't care at all. It was freakish and sensational. "Satanistic ritual games inspire killer" certainly moves more product, as a headline, than "Bad upbringing and psychological disorders strike again."

But we rolled it back. We had studies. They didn't. We had facts. They didn't even know what they were talking about. In retrospect it's possible there was already a pendulum swing underway against the excesses of the Religious Right but in this niche, and sure - fair enough - roleplaying back then was niche, we did win the argument. They went away, were treated as cranks, and the issue remains dead to this day.


Meanwhile, video games now are trapped in a cycle where they continually downgrade the level of content acceptable for mature audiences, get called out again on something controversial, and then downgrade again "voluntarily".

I'm sniffling? You know what? Fuck you, Brian. Right around when you started talking about the "worthiness" of the entertainment those damned kids love so much is when you needed to subtract yourself from the discussion. By attempting to reason on the terms of social conservatives, you've allowed them to shift the goalposts to standards that shouldn't apply to any art form, let alone one in its infancy, and become part of the problem.

You're wishing. "Gosh darn it, wouldn't it be nice if the industry knew what the fuck it was doing and people even cared?" You find the idea of even exploring the underlaying facts an act of surrender to censorship. "Not our hobby's fault if harm is done. That's not the point."

What do you want? How do you think you're going to get it if you equate all the voting public out there with the Religious Right? We're talking about overworked parents who just don't need another hassle. You've seen the numbers I'm sure. Hours put in. Latchkey kids. Sure, this crap started with the Moral Majority/BADD folks back in the 80's but now it's a football tossed around by both sides and everyone in between.

So, how are you going to get those voters on your side or at least decide this fight isn't the most important one? By convincing the media that this issue is just a bullshit smokescreen. But first it might be, oh, a tad helpful if you prove it. Or the industry proves it. Not just talking hypotheticals, or in terms of abstract principles, but by dropping mass tonnage of studies on reporters and editors until they just give up and want to dig out of it.

Assuming the facts are on our side. I'm somewhat comfortable with that assumption but it's only that - supposition. We need facts. We need ammo.


This is where the corollary to my Rudy theory comes in: if you find yourself engaging one of the arguments he's made through the years on his terms, you probably need to reevaluate your thought process. Ask Mapplethorpe (well, if he were alive) who should be judging his art's worth.

As noted above, this is the political reality. That's the terrain. Those are the positions. You know the players. How are you going to move it? By just assuming all the less than informed media figures, and viewers that pay attention to them, out there are Rudy? Telling them to damn well get their dumb, lazy, asses the hell off your lawn and worry about their own instead? Or take a more practical look at the haggard, stressed out and messy, reality that's real life for most parents - and media figures for that matter.


Don't give me protips, Rucker. The problem is exactly that sort of compromised bullshit. It's been a problem since the first social engineer decided he should tell other people how they should be entertained by law: you can't deal with fundamental subversions of constitutional intent as if they are honestly conducted differences of opinion. And the only way victories are won is when they are engaged on the terms of the first amendment correctly, whether by reasonable, decent people or by a Larry Flynt. Otherwise, all you get is a temporary ceasefire while the self appointed arbiters of media begin their next move.

If the video gaming industry could get other media to back them up and everyone linked arms in solidarity, they don't even have to be singing Kumbayah, then your constitutional arguments would have more real weight. But we've got a broken, ideologicial, Supreme Court now (thank you Bush Administration!) that takes incredibly inconsistant positions.

Don't count on your correct interpretation, as it is, of Constitutional Rights as any garauntee of what it's going to do or why. Not unless they're as piled under with amicus briefs from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and the rest of the gang as, ideally, our previously mentioned media figures are with studies showing gaming's harmless impact.


Gaming is now a multi billion dollar industry. The question is whether it values its creative liberties enough to invest in a future that way, because this question will not be resolved by pundits on TV. Those morons will do as they are told. The question will be resolved by which special interests work most effectively to play the game, and that's a simple question of money and strategic thinking. You don't even need to look at the obviously successful lobbies; even the murky ones like tobacco have plenty to teach.

If it's so easy, and so important to the industry, why isn't it being done?

But frankly, to me as an individual with some sense of integrity, I'd really like to know if gaming is harmful to children, or anyone. I don't believe it is. Historically, most forms of entertainment initially condemned as harmful have become mainstream (including that antiquated niche roleplaying stuff - ever heard of WoW? D&D, you've come a long way, baby) and accepted. But do we know for certain? If we can't convince ourselves how can we convince less invested, incurious, people who, nevertheless, do have the power to shape the environment our hobby exists in?


You want to make sure GTA4 isn't being purchased by ten year olds? I'm with you all the way. There's a lot of genuine discussions to be had about how best to rate games and distribute them. But what you don't seem to realize is that the people driving Hillary to say these kinds of things are looking to set up distribution legislatively in a manner that prevents games they find objectionable from even being made. They can have their Chronicles of Narnia, just so long as the R-rated movies still exist in a reasonably accessible manner for me to go to.

Is there really legislation being cooked that would cause that? Maybe, and this would really be helpful to me, you could show me what causes you to say that. I'd like to know the links between the campaigns, anti-gaming groups, and explicit bits of legislation. I know there has to be some organization or two devoted to covering this stuff but can't say I've heard much that's useful out of them...


GTA and countless other games have proven that limited forms of maturity and controversy are marketable. Now the onus is upon those same people that made all that money off it to ensure that we don't find ourselves steadily sliding towards a blander, Christian Coalition approved future. And if you get the chance to call out a few of these candidates by making a stink about these sort of moves, that's not going to hurt a thing.

Sure. And they'll just giggle and drive on by. To where the voters are. Need to change that route somehow.

[Lizard_King]

Agree to disagree, then. I'm sorry to say I think Hustler has a better grasp of the constitution and how to engage it in public discourse than you do, and I really have to question how you come off describing my position as some brand of wide eyed idealism.

I don't think voters and popular opinions (whatever the hell they are) are the issue, and I don't think they have been since long before de Tocqueville first broke down American democracy for everybody. When mob rule of that sort becomes a factor is usually long after the lobbyists (in all of their forms) are done fighting. The reason game companies seem to be missing out on that, I suspect, is probably because they subscribe to the same flawed reasoning in this matter you do, and no doubt from the best of intentions.