Hill's Gaming Bill

Clinton introducing federal game regulation has word that our Junior Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton (D), is behind a new bill on video game sales. Here's a bit:
This afternoon, Clinton's office announced she has written a bill that would institute federal regulation of game sales. Coauthored by longtime game critic Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), the Family Entertainment Protection Act will be jointly submitted by the two legislators when Congress reconvenes in two weeks.

If made law, the Family Entertainment Protection Act would be a "a prohibition against any business for selling or renting a Mature, Adults-Only, or Ratings Pending game to a person who is younger than seventeen." It would punish violators with unspecified fines, though it did not specify if the clerk who sold the game or the retailer where said clerk worked would be punished. "This provision is not aimed at punishing retailers who act in good faith to enforce the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) system," read a statement from Clinton's office.

While the retail part of the bill is similar to laws recently passed in Michigan, Illinois, and California, the Family Entertainment Protection Act goes much farther. It would authorize "the FTC to conduct an annual, random audit of retailers to determine how easy it is for young people to purchase Mature and Adults Only video games and report the findings to Congress." These findings would be part of a larger annual analysis of ESRB game ratings. "This analysis will help ensure that the ESRB ratings system accurately reflects the content in each game and that the ratings system does not change significantly over time," read Clinton's statement.

The bill would also allow private citizens to file complaints with the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP) "if they find content to be misleading or deceptive." The BCP would issue an annual report on said complaints to Congress as part of the aforementioned annual review.
View : : :
85 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  ] Older
85.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 4, 2005, 07:05
85.
Re: No subject Dec 4, 2005, 07:05
Dec 4, 2005, 07:05
 
You can't use unreasonable force. Like, for example, Tony Martin; the farmer who shot a 16 year old burglar in the back, as he was running away chased by Rottweilers and pleading for his life (oh, and the burgler was also a gypsy, a racial group for which Tony Martin had a vitriolic hatred).

He had been repeatedly burgled and the two guys breaking in had a string of convictions and were known criminals. The law should punish criminals, not protect them and that is why the Tony Martin case is so distrubing - it basically says you can't protect yourself against known criminals; if he had have restrained them and held them until the police got there he would have been prosecuted for kidnapping (which has happened in similar situations).

This included the case of a man who laid in wait for a burglar at a commercial premises, before beating him up, throwing him in a pit and setting him on fire. Do you think that's reasonable self defence?

Personally? Yes. Once you break the law by breaking into someone else's property you should lose any rights/protection under law - otherwise you penalise people (in this case land/property owners) that operate within the law and reward breaking the law, particularly with our lax legal system. Laws are basically a stated form of morals - it is immoral to steal, it is moral to protect your property and defend yourself.

The law should be used to judge the morality of a situation... if someone lived near a playing field, waited for a ball to come over and then killed the kid that leapt over the wall to collect it them that is immoral and they should be locked away for life. However, if you have been repeatedly burgled by known criminals then I believe killing them is fair game - it would certainly make criminal reconsider what they are doing. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen - in fact prisoners seem to be getting ever more rights and privileges. What's most disturbing is that prisoners are allowed the vote thanks to the EU... when you commit a serious crime the privilege of voting should be revoked. I give up - Western society is well and truely fucked and completely immoral.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Emotinomicon: Emoticons of the Dead
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
84.
 
No subject
Dec 2, 2005, 07:56
84.
No subject Dec 2, 2005, 07:56
Dec 2, 2005, 07:56
 
Still a dumb fucking idea to take away legal posession of guns in the hopes that criminals will be nice(even if they have trouble finding a gun).


And what reason do you have to own one? Self defense? Please. America's wild west mentality worked when we were facing off against the big bad British or French empires and needed a defensive populace. Criminal's aren't going to be any nicer, but the cops won't have to worry about a criminal's arcenal at least.

I'm sorry, but most reasons gun nuts cite for owning a firearm are inadequate in today's day and age. And the valid reasons they do provide are always overridden by the benefits that not having firearms present in society would bring.



edit-

Actually, seeing who is posting and the bs being thrown around, I don't know why I responded to the statement above.

This comment was edited on Dec 2, 07:59.
83.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 1, 2005, 17:30
83.
Re: No subject Dec 1, 2005, 17:30
Dec 1, 2005, 17:30
 
Interesting link, thanks.

82.
 
Re: No subject
Nov 30, 2005, 20:48
82.
Re: No subject Nov 30, 2005, 20:48
Nov 30, 2005, 20:48
 
Gun control idiots like Moore always tout statistics so here is some:
http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Still a dumb fucking idea to take away legal posession of guns in the hopes that criminals will be nice(even if they have trouble finding a gun).

"God made man, Colt made them equal" -Samuel Colt


81.
 
Re: No subject
Nov 30, 2005, 17:58
Prez
 
81.
Re: No subject Nov 30, 2005, 17:58
Nov 30, 2005, 17:58
 Prez
 
Why does every frickin' thread devolve into a "my country is bigger than your" excercise?

This has nothing to do with Brits, their right to defend themselves, or whether French women should shave their armpits. For that matter it doesn't really have anything to do with how many twinkies Moore consumes either...

Although, now that I have mentioned them, those WOULD make pretty riveting conversations.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
80.
 
Re: No subject
Nov 30, 2005, 15:22
80.
Re: No subject Nov 30, 2005, 15:22
Nov 30, 2005, 15:22
 
It's not like Hillary gives a shit about this anyways. The democrats are shooting themeselves in the ass if they nominate that fucking cunt for president... So please, nominate that fucking cunt for president

79.
 
No subject
Nov 30, 2005, 12:21
79.
No subject Nov 30, 2005, 12:21
Nov 30, 2005, 12:21
 
Blow it out of your ass Hilery Cunton, this is all about choice and we as gamers choose to play these games the way they are so got over it already bitch!

This comment was edited on Nov 30, 12:21.
Creator of the Neverwnter Nights Eye of the Beholder Series of Mods.

http://www.moddb.com/mods/eye-of-the-beholder-ii-ledgend-of-darkmoon
Avatar 20498
78.
 
Re: I guess... (#29)
Nov 30, 2005, 12:02
JM
78.
Re: I guess... (#29) Nov 30, 2005, 12:02
Nov 30, 2005, 12:02
JM
 
what is unconstitutional about restricting the sale of damaging products to minors?

First prove to me that video games are damaging to anyone. I guess you also better give me your definition of "damaging" in this context.

77.
 
Re: I guess... (#29)
Nov 30, 2005, 11:13
77.
Re: I guess... (#29) Nov 30, 2005, 11:13
Nov 30, 2005, 11:13
 
Cigarettes, alcohol and explosives are not speech so they are not protected by the first amendment.

Okay then, what about hate speech? I presume that if I were a retailer I couldn't put the manifesto of the KKK on my store shelves can I?

PZ
------------
Reading: Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World"
PZ
------------
76.
 
Re: I guess... (#29)
Nov 30, 2005, 10:59
Max
76.
Re: I guess... (#29) Nov 30, 2005, 10:59
Nov 30, 2005, 10:59
Max
 
Cigarettes, alcohol and explosives are not speech so they are not protected by the first amendment.

Max

75.
 
Thank God for the Democrats
Nov 30, 2005, 09:30
75.
Thank God for the Democrats Nov 30, 2005, 09:30
Nov 30, 2005, 09:30
 
If it weren't for the Democrats who would protect all of us stupid Americans from ourselves!? They help keep my dumb wigger cousin in his place by giving him welfare and they'll keep me in my place by keeping me from buying Battlefield 1942 'cause I might'n jus go shewt summa muh classmates at alternative scool.

74.
 
No subject
Nov 30, 2005, 09:26
74.
No subject Nov 30, 2005, 09:26
Nov 30, 2005, 09:26
 
If the federal government wants the FTC to regulate video games, how about it start with the video game industry's poor quality control and customer service practices? Those are bigger problems and of more concern to consumers than violent and indecent content.

This comment was edited on Nov 30, 09:40.
73.
 
Re: time better spent
Nov 30, 2005, 09:18
73.
Re: time better spent Nov 30, 2005, 09:18
Nov 30, 2005, 09:18
 
This isnt Clinton or Lieberman acting like Thompson and trying to get all religious and wanting all violent games banned. They jsut dont want them sold freely to minors.
Oooh, that looks like one vote for Clinton/Lieberman already.


72.
 
No subject
Nov 30, 2005, 09:14
72.
No subject Nov 30, 2005, 09:14
Nov 30, 2005, 09:14
 
I have always despised politicians getting involved in computers simply because you would be hard pressed to find anyone less savvy then your average politician. That said, I dont really care much about an age limit simply because, in my experience, most of my kids friends have these games and it is not because they strolled to the store and bought it themselves. Sure, it happens, but parents, older friends, etc., will simply buy the game. It is another big waste of politicians time, especially coming from NY, the most taxed state where they can never settle a budget on time. I am so moving out of this state as soon as I can. IMHO, this is Government trying to be parents, something Hillary is famous for. You know, it takes a village. No, it takes a parent to do their friggin job. Never needed no village in my house. So far, with no government intervention, my kids turned out ok, and they still play violent video games.
71.
 
Vote early and often.
Nov 30, 2005, 09:10
71.
Vote early and often. Nov 30, 2005, 09:10
Nov 30, 2005, 09:10
 
Look for a Clinton/Lieberman presidential ticket in '08.

70.
 
Re: I guess... (#29)
Nov 30, 2005, 09:07
70.
Re: I guess... (#29) Nov 30, 2005, 09:07
Nov 30, 2005, 09:07
 
Serious question here cos I have no idea what's legal in the states:

Can you sell cigarettes to under 17 year olds? How about porn? Gay porn? Alcohol? Explosives?

Now those are in no way similar to video games but presumably there are SOME restrictions on what you can sell in the US, regardless of the Constitution.

Enforceable age limits on games are good for the majority of gamers who are over 18. If 13 year olds could buy alcohol people would be crying for alcohol to be banned outright. By controlling who can buy it you take the pressure of the majority.

I can't see how restricting sales to minors is anything but good. In fact not having restrictions on video games sales is an infringement of the rights of the responsible majority whose image in the media is being dragged down by the current system.

The system works well in the UK IMO (at least to the extent we don't have this ridiculous politicising and lawsuits, etc), but the problem maybe is that the UK has a lot more sensible ratings. The US, IIRC, has a system where the equivalent to UK15 is the 17+ rating, and the equivalent to 18 is AO and regarded like porn; despite the demographics showing most gameplayers are well over 18.

Although I think it'd make sense to have a proper ratings system - at least in terms of setting the boundaries of individual responsibility in firm legal terms - I can't help but think the whole attitude in Us politics and media is too immature for such a system to work.

Freespace 2: Lost Souls
http://www.sectorgame.com/aldo/
69.
 
No subject
Nov 30, 2005, 09:01
69.
No subject Nov 30, 2005, 09:01
Nov 30, 2005, 09:01
 
not only do you have no idea whats legal here, you must have no idea how the govt operates, and how various people jockey for their position

in other words - this "bill" is all bullshit... hype, propaganda, etc. etc.

________________________
music from space captain:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/6/errantways_music.htm
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/4/invisibleacropolis_music.htm
68.
 
Re: I guess... (#29)
Nov 30, 2005, 08:48
68.
Re: I guess... (#29) Nov 30, 2005, 08:48
Nov 30, 2005, 08:48
 
Serious question here cos I have no idea what's legal in the states:

Can you sell cigarettes to under 17 year olds? How about porn? Gay porn? Alcohol? Explosives?

Now those are in no way similar to video games but presumably there are SOME restrictions on what you can sell in the US, regardless of the Constitution.

Enforceable age limits on games are good for the majority of gamers who are over 18. If 13 year olds could buy alcohol people would be crying for alcohol to be banned outright. By controlling who can buy it you take the pressure of the majority.

I can't see how restricting sales to minors is anything but good. In fact not having restrictions on video games sales is an infringement of the rights of the responsible majority whose image in the media is being dragged down by the current system.


67.
 
No subject
Nov 30, 2005, 08:37
67.
No subject Nov 30, 2005, 08:37
Nov 30, 2005, 08:37
 
I like how in the UK self defense is ILLEGAL. You cannot kill someone who robs/threatens you in your own HOME.

I like how you spout such complete and utter crap and use big capital letters to pretend it's factual.

You can't use unreasonable force. Like, for example, Tony Martin; the farmer who shot a 16 year old burglar in the back, as he was running away chased by Rottweilers and pleading for his life (oh, and the burgler was also a gypsy, a racial group for which Tony Martin had a vitriolic hatred).

In the last 15 years, exactly 11 people have been prosecuted (in England and Wales; Scotland has a seperate legal system which I can't find figures from justnow) and 5 convicted offor attacking intruders.

This included the case of a man who laid in wait for a burglar at a commercial premises, before beating him up, throwing him in a pit and setting him on fire. Do you think that's reasonable self defence?

The police guidelines on self-defense allow prosecution for 'undue or excessive force'; such as setting a trap without police involvement (i.e. as above), or knocking someone unconscious before killing or hurting them further.

Freespace 2: Lost Souls
http://www.sectorgame.com/aldo/
66.
 
Re: I guess... (#29)
Nov 30, 2005, 07:07
66.
Re: I guess... (#29) Nov 30, 2005, 07:07
Nov 30, 2005, 07:07
 
Whether or not her reasons for this bill are valid(they aren't), I am sure that article X of the Constitution says it is none of the feds damn business who buys what in the states.

By the way the economy IS flourishing, but not if you listen to CNN/MSNBC...

85 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  ] Older