Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Government Entertainment Politics

Clinton Introduces Invasive Game Legislation 157

Posted by Zonk from the slippery-slope dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Senator Clinton has introduced a doozy of a game bill. It mandates an investigation of the gaming industry to determine how pervasive hidden mature content like the 'Hot Coffee' mod is." GamePolitics is reporting on the bill itself, as well as the ESA's response. From the latter article: "While we are gratified that the Senator holds the ESRB in such high regard that her bill would give these ratings the force of law, the courts have made clear that giving a private party governmental powers is unconstitutional. Beyond that, the bill clearly infringes the constitutionally protected creative rights of the video game industry. Thus, if enacted, the bill will be struck down as have similar bills passed in several states...." More commentary at Gamasutra.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Clinton Introduces Invasive Game Legislation More

Clinton Introduces Invasive Game Legislation

Comments Filter:
  • I wanna tack a rider on to that bill. $30 million dollars of tax payer money for the perverted arts.

  • To The Editors (Score:2, Insightful)

    by HunterZ ( 20035 )
    Can you please make Politics the primary category for this article so that people will actually see it and comment on it?

  • LOOK AT ME (Score:5, Funny)

    by oni ( 41625 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @01:26PM (#14148352) Homepage
    Hey everyone, look at me! I'm running for president, and I'm absolutely *not* a liberal at all. No sir (or ma'am), I am a moderate and I care. I care so much, that sometimes care oozes out of my pores and drips onto the ground. And I mop it up because I don't want anyone to slip and fall. That's how much I care.

    Want another example? I care about your little son, Timberland, whom you drive to Soccer practice every day in your 30 ton SUV. I care about him so much that I'm going to get those evil game companies that push violent games on him. I'm going to get them. I'm going to make them pay. Don't you see how much I care?

    VOTE FOR ME!

    • You're right, Hillary is not a liberal. She's a part of the Democratic party called the DLC, which for years has been saying that the Dems need to be more like Republicans because conservatives get the votes. That DLC strategy doesn't really work that well, as we have all seen.

      Hillary is quite uniformly rejected by the liberals in the Democratic party.
      • Sorry, I don't understand - there are liberal sin the democratic party? Since when?

      • Re:LOOK AT ME (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Dausha ( 546002 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @03:56PM (#14149808) Homepage
        I'm sorry, but Hillary is definitely *not* a moderate. She is a closet socialist--in the closet because she realizes that most of Americans disagree with her agenda. Remember her universal medical coverage, her bus tour across the U.S. to push it? More importantly, I don't think liberals have rejected her. She is very popular among the NOW, which is not the bastion of Moderateness.

        If she were a Moderate, or a Conservative, then she would have run for Senator in Arkansas, her last state of residence. She might have won, even though she is a Yankee. She ran in NY because it is *not* a Conservative state. She went to where her base was.

        • Yes, I do remember her health care plan, because I actually had to read the "short" 30-odd page summary when I was working at an accounting textbook company at the time.

          It was not socialized medicine.

          It wasn't even socialized insurance (which is what Canada has, more or less, not socialized medicine--doctors in Canada are still private practitioners.) This is a meme that was pushed by insurance companies who didn't like the fact that the proposed health care plan might have made them less money.

          Essentially,

    • Hey everyone, look at me! I'm running for president, and I'm absolutely *not* a liberal at all.

      Well actually, she's not. She's trying to enforce a particular view of morality through federal law. That's about as far from being a liberal as you can get. A liberal tries to maximize rights through law, not reduce them by prohibiting self regulation. She's much closer to the religious right wing than a liberal. Check out Wikipedia::Liberal for a not entirely terrible overview of the meaning.

      I have my ow

  • just curious... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by C0rinthian ( 770164 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @01:29PM (#14148377)
    why something like this only applies to games and not other forms of media. Why does 'Family Entertainment Protection Act' specifically target games when movies, books, and magazines can be just as 'harmful' to children.

    Personally, I have a problem with the bill even existing, but I find the double standard to be particularly disturbing. I guess we're looking at FOTM politics.
    • Because it's their turn.

      We've already had book burnings and banned movies. And after video games, the fundies will jump on the bandwagon against those evil holographic crystals
      • Exactly. The same ignorant backlash has happened to just about all new media. The goal is to prevent this from evolving into the video game form of "The Comics Code Authority".
    • I understand and agree with your point, but technically movies, books, and magazines are not as harmful as video games because games are interactive. There's a huge difference between sitting back and watching/reading something violent, and actively controlling the violence yourself. I'm so surprised so few people here realize that.
      • Why are they different? I don't think that's obvious at all.
        • I think I explained it quite clearly. Movies are not interactive. Video games are. Something that is interactive is more "intense" than something that is passive. So interactive violence is more intense than passive violence. The more intensive the violence, the more psychologically damaging it is.

          After I play a racing game, I get an adrenaline rush that makes me want to race a real car. Fortunately, I'm a mature adult, and I can easily overcome this rush. But children typically aren't as strong-wi

      • I entirely disagree with you. The fact that games are more interactive is what makes them less harmful than movies or books. With the exception of light gun games, carrying out any kind of violent act in a video game requires an input entirely dissasociated with the act itself. Moving an analog stick and pressing a button does not generally emulate what would actually need to be done to carry out an act of violence.

        Conversely, books and especially movies provide no interactive context for their viewer
        • While I agree with you in principle, you don't really believe what you just said do you? When playing a FPS are you really thinking "I'm gonna move the joystick to the left then press the 'A' button!" Or are you thinking "I'm gonna whack that biatch!"

          Otherwise killing somebody with a gun is only "pointing an inanimate object and pulling a trigger."
    • why something like this only applies to games and not other forms of media

      Because the average American doesn't see video games as an adult industry. Over and over it's been shown that more adults (18+) are buying video games than minors, and it's a huge difference. It makes sense because we (I'm 29) were playing games since Atari, NES, SNES. We've grown up and so have the games but the gaming industry is still seen as being something only kids buy.

      The only oversight the movies get are MPAA ratings a
    • Because games are interactive. This allows users to boot up GTA for the first time, find a knife, and spend all of their time slitting prostitute's throats, and not doing anything else. Or shooting cops over and over, or...

      Granted, there is an actual plot and achievements to GTA: San Andreas that don't require (and even discourage) the above actions. And doing the above gets boring after a while (much as reading over and over a section of a book detailing a murder would quickly get boring), but the int

      • No, I honestly don't think games are significantly worse than movies, but I think it's understandable that some people might think that way?

        Well sure, but that doesn't mean that those people should be able to pass laws to restrict the choice of people like you and me. In fact, I think letting them do that would be pretty much in direct opposition to what the USA was supposed to stand for...
    • why something like this only applies to games and not other forms of media. Why does 'Family Entertainment Protection Act' specifically target games when movies, books, and magazines can be just as 'harmful' to children.

      Could you imagine the chaos that would come from not letting children go to R-rated movies? People might have to *gasp* HIRE A FREAKING SITTER before going to the latest bloodbath and/or sex romp movie flick.

    • why something like this only applies to games and not other forms of media. Why does 'Family Entertainment Protection Act' specifically target games when movies, books, and magazines can be just as 'harmful' to children.
      Indeed, when I was a kid, I would masturbate looking at pictures in pornographic magazines. The result now is that I am a raving sex-maniac, and now I masturbate at pictures downloaded from the Internet.
    • Why does 'Family Entertainment Protection Act' specifically target games when movies, books, and magazines can be just as 'harmful' to children.

      Because soccer moms use movies, books, and magazines. Video games are what those other people use.

  • The single biggest reason politicians fail:

    "Yes, it's illegal. Yes, I know it's been defeated before. But, goddamn it, I want it! Want want want! Rrrrr, gimme! Mine!

  • Irrationalism is alive and well. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by max born ( 739948 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @01:32PM (#14148420)
    Usually when someone wants to pass a law for something, like seat belts, speed limits, drunk driving, etc., they have some scientific data pointing to a problem that can be rectified by a law.

    But when it comes to nudity, profanity, violence -- you need no scientific evidence to support you claims. Afterall we all just know it's bad, right?

    It's also interesting to note that, despite reasonable evidence to the contrary people still believe in horoscopes, ghosts, and angels. A recent CBS news poll found that 51% of Americans don't believe in evolution.

    I'd hazard to guess these kinds of bills are more about justifying our own irrational superstitions than they are about protecting children. What exactly are we protecting them from anyway?
    • A recent CBS news poll found that 51% of Americans don't believe in evolution.

      These are the people whom Senator Clinton is trying to court. Personally, I'm glad she's trying to create worthless legislation instead of something actively harmful. This video game legislation is mild compared to some of the crazy things these moralists will do in the name of "protecting the children".

  • le sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @01:33PM (#14148437) Homepage Journal
    Young people WILL get what they want, be it porn or violence. Let's spend money on education and community programs instead so they won't be corrupted by said porn and violence.
    • I agree completely. The problem is that when the state funds these programs, people are often too proud to use them. I work in health care and there is a very generous state aid program that protects the middle class from small to astronomical bill amounts, but people are too proud half the time to use it.

      Back in the day you could trust your kids were at some church youth group some nights, but those days are gone now. Nobody trusts anyone. But that isn't even the problem. Most of the time it's because

  • A tough one (Score:1, Interesting)

    by jd ( 1658 )
    Politicians who write bills that would actually work would be crucified by the Religious Right. Given the current trend in extremism in the US, possibly literally.

    On the other hand, I would certainly regard it as both fair and reasonable for Government to determine if "easter eggs" and other hidden content frequently contain illegal extras. I'm not just counting adult material in a juvenile game - the whole Sony DRM thing was definitely hidden content containing illegal extras.

    This does not mean such materi

  • Mature content (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fastgood ( 714723 )
    So in 1965 when Senator Clinton was 17 years old, the government should have been investigating
    all the hidden content being revealed when teens started playing 45rpm records backwards?

    There's little new under the sun, and gray hair still makes people forget their own younger days.

  • SSDD (Score:4, Funny)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @01:38PM (#14148486) Journal
    Another "What can we stick our noses into" bill that might become law.

    I'm glad the Religous Right and the Lame Left are here to protect me from, ah, everything.


    This land is their land,
    It isn't our land,
    From the Wall Street office
    To the Cadillac car-land;
    From the plush apartments
    To the Hollywood starland,
    This land is not for you and me.

    If this is our land,
    You'd never know it,
    So take your bullshit
    And kindly stow it,
    Let's get together
    And overthrow it,
    Then this land will be for you and me.

  • As an adult... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Irish_Samurai ( 224931 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @01:41PM (#14148520)
    I could care less about this. This IS NOT censorship. You can make any game you want. You can sell your adult themed games to adults. If you think your child is mature enough to play a game that they cannot legally purchase, purchase it for them.

    Let the FCC investigate the Hot Coffee incident. What are they going to suggest? That we get a new and improved rating system? Oh, NO! Not another rating system that childrens parents are going to ignore anyway. This problem wouldn't exist if people would raise their own children, which they don't do. So now Big Mother has to step in and do it for you.

    The major target of video game companies are 28-35 year old's who grew up playing games and have disposable income. This demographic votes with their dollar and those votes are for violence and adult themes. Companies are catering to this. Maybe it is time for some harsher regulations on sales. A little kid cannot go and purchase Scarface at the media store, so why should he be able to get GTA:SA?

    Now, if this starts to regulate content - I'm fighting tooth and nail.

    • Re:As an adult... (Score:3, Informative)

      by interiot ( 50685 )
      The problem for adults, as I see it, is that it's such a stigma for a game or movie to be marked "for 18+ year olds only", and that some stores then refuse to sell it. Walmart sells beer but not violent games. As a result, manufacturers want to fudge the rating systems a little.

      I think we should encourage honest disclosure about what's in a game, and have manufacturers pander to the large market out there for mature-only content, have stores sell games to adults only, and leave the kids out of it.

      • Walmart sells beer but not violent games.

        Not true. [walmart.com] But I do agree that the 18+ tag is a real stigma. If we could change the rating system to acknowledge the levels of each element in a game, I think we would be on the right track. Rate for Violence, Sexual Content, Language, and Adult Themes and you can then make decisions with more confidence.
        • Well, that's the online site, which is possibly different from what's available in local stores. But I guess this blog post [idsnews.com] clarifies a bit more... specific local stores decide to not carry specific mature-rated games. Which, I believe is also true for beer as well, so perhaps it is more consistent than I thought.

          Weird thought: are they any jurisdictions where retailers are required to get the game equivalent of a liquor license from their local jurisdiction before they're allowed to sell Mature games?

      • I know this is kind of off topic, but the comment about Wal-mart and beer brings up something I've wondered for ages... Why are the XBox/PS2/etc. games always hidden behind glass cases? The computer games aren't. Neither on the CDs or DVDs. And yet the console games are! They cost similar to some DVD movie packs, are larger than CDs, and aren't even illegal for minors. Very odd.
        • Theft. Kids are more likely to try and jack some ps2 games than a pc game.
          • What annoys me is that after all this time, most stores STILL don't bother to shrink-wrap PC game boxes. Last year my brother bought me Half-Life 2 for Christmas and I had to take it back to my local GameStop because someone had already stolen the CD key and carefully replaced the plastic tape on the box flap. Now I have to inspect the tape very carefully before making any PC game purchases to ensure that it hasn't been tampered with.
          • I would be amazed if the attempted theft of video games is higher than DVDs and CDs. Why don't they just put those electronic theft tags in the video game boxes the same way they do with the CDs and DVDs?
    • I care quite a bit because I think this is an overreaching attempt to control what people do in their own homes. The content of video games should be way outside the jurisdiction of the government. This is just as bad as Ted Steven's recent attempt to bring cable and satellite tv under FCC supervision.

      Another reason why I am very much opposed to it is because it is a waste of time and money. There are so many issues that congress needs to be dealing with: the war, economy, environment, political corruption,
      • I care quite a bit because I think this is an overreaching attempt to control what people do in their own homes.

        RTFA. This does not attempt to control what people do in their own homes. This attempts to control the sale of questionable content to minors, that's it. The government isn't trying to regulate content. Joe Leiberman even stated this. Take the tinfoil hat off.

        Another reason why I am very much opposed to it is because it is a waste of time and money.

        This I can totally agree with, but that's politi
    • "A little kid cannot go and purchase Scarface at the media store, so why should he be able to get GTA:SA?"

      Legally, he can go purchase Scarface at a store. The MPAA rating system is voluntary, just like the ESRB. The difference is that many parents are not as aware of (~concerned about?) adult content in games as they are of adult content in movies.

      This is compounded when the ESRB ratings are not accurate -- and according to whose definition they are established (i.e., is Hot Coffee part of GTA:SA, or
      • It will regulate content, whether directly or indirectly. Consumer pressure will be enough to get adult-themed games off the shelves in mass retail shops, which means that no one will develop those games.

        Sorry, it will only regulate content that isn't neccesary. If the creators of that content are not directly prevented from creating that content, then they are not censored. If they decide to change their content in order to sell more games, then they made a marketing decision that either compromised the or
        • You're right, the major target demographic is not kids... nor is it 28-35 year olds.

          1) the target demographic is not necessarily the purchasing demographic -- people buy games for their kids. This is going to shift the average purchaser age up by a lot.

          2) according to your sources, the average gamer age is 27 -- which still lies below the range where you assign the target demographic.

          I agree that the kids demographic is not the major target of a lot of games, but 28-35 is quite a bit high...

          Also,
    • Now, if this starts to regulate content - I'm fighting tooth and nail.

      Well, if this plays out anything like the Tipper stickers did, it will regulate content. She used the same defense... that this is to help parents make informed choices for their kids. What it actually did was keep records with tipper stickers from selling, and in a lot of cases, thrown out of stores. Bands like the Beastie Boys capitulated to the threats of getting a sticker and pulled profanity from their records so that they could

      • Bands like the Beastie Boys capitulated to the threats of getting a sticker and pulled profanity from their records so that they could still get sold in the big chain stores.

        Self regulating content is not the same as outside regulation. If the Beasties wanted to stay true to their work, they wouldn't have changed a thing. The instant it affected their MONEY is when they made changes. This is not artstic integrity, and doesn't draw an ounce of sympathy from me. If you make a MARKETING decision that compromis

  • So Much For Bible Video Games ... (Score:4, Informative)

    by rewinn ( 647614 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @01:41PM (#14148522) Homepage
    If we apply this standard to the Holy Book, we're going to have to put warning labels on any game based on, e.g. "a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!" (Psalms 137:9) or "And that slave, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten." (Luke 12:47)
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • If we apply this standard to the Holy Book, we're going to have to put warning labels on any game based on, e.g. "a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!" (Psalms 137:9)
      I promise that I will give $10,000 to a charity the instant a videogame company will put up a videogame based on the gory details of the Old Testament!!!

  • Misplaced Priorities (Score:2, Insightful)

    by wilbz ( 842093 )
    Back in the day when her "husband" was president, her supposed top priority was reforming health care to ensure that every American had some sort of reasonable coverage for if they were sick or injured. Now she's more worried about protecting our youth from potential images of sex or violence.

    It seems to me that government in general lately has been more concerned with legislation that protects "morality" (e.g. media content, gay marriages, etc.) than with doing anything that tangibly affects people suc
    • An interesting point of view. This makes me wonder if its more of a ploy to appeal to religiously conservative Americans, for re-election or perhaps a presedential candidacy.
    • That's because when it comes right down to it they realize that real reform would mean hurting those in power.

      Health care for all means you can't have the few [insurance providers] screwing over their customers. Access to education means private schools can't rape you into submission, etc, etc. It's easier to pick on the gays, foreigners or other "threats" because it doesn't require any talent beyond simple biggotry.

      These new game laws [and trust me there will be more] are just a new way of showing off th
      • Health care for all means you can't have the few [insurance providers] screwing over their customers. Access to education means private schools can't rape you into submission, etc, etc. It's easier to pick on the gays, foreigners or other "threats" because it doesn't require any talent beyond simple biggotry.

        You're right, the government should do everything. Because government projects always work out so well. I mean, I'm sure if the US had public health care the government wouldn't force drug companies t

        • "You're right, the government should do everything. Because government projects always work out so well. "

          Usually when a government project screws up it's because the contractors bidding on the work are corrupt (either incapable or incompetent or both).

          Look at Diebold as a prime example.

          But why take my word for it. You drive on public highways, using your government mandated safety test passing vehicle, your kids likely attend public school and can get public emergency health care. You're subject to gover
    • Don't bash the puritans too much. At least they didn't create Jim Crow laws.
  • It's hilarious that Hillary would be on a crusade to protect kids from sexual content after her husband did so much to promote fellatio and marital infidelity. Hillary says she wants to put parents "back in the driver's seat" with respect to protecting their children. But isn't her proposal an attempt to put the federal government in the driver seat? I think little Timmy will download mature games from file sharing networks anyway.

  • The Solution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hunterx11 ( 778171 ) <hunterx11@g3.1415926mail.com minus pi> on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:11PM (#14148851) Homepage Journal
    The solution to this problem is obvious.

    The video game industry needs to start making campaign contributions to politicians at a level on par with the film and music industries.

  • Or is she just trying to keep tabs on what Bill's video games are showing him.
  • "This is about protecting children," she commented.

    I'm so sick of people buying to this excuse. Every time I hear it, I shudder to think what liberties they're attempting to strip away.
  • No Hilary, there isnt any more content in games like the hot coffee mod thats why it was interesting in the first place, yes I know thats what made you famous and you want to milk it as much as possible but you just CAN'T the well is dry, sorry.

    No Hilary, you cant go to the developers offices and check if they are adding penises to their game models when nobody is watching it's anticonstitutional and is against the first ammendment the artists are (surpringsily enough) human beings and united states citizen

  • My letter to Joseph Lieberman, D, CT (Score:4, Interesting)

    by illumin8 ( 148082 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:35PM (#14149089) Journal
    I just sent a letter to Joseph Lieberman, and if you live in either CT or NY I suggest you do the same (send one to Hillary Clinton if you live in NY of course). This is the only way they'll know we don't approve of their actions:

    Dear Senator Lieberman,

    Today I learned that in two weeks time, you will be introducing a bill along with Senator Clinton titled the "Family Entertainment Protection Act." I would like to request that you reconsider introducing such a bill.

    I am 32 years old, college educated, and work as a professional in the chip manufacturing and semiconductor industry here in Connecticut. I am also a gamer. I play all types of video games, including violent ones, and have never felt the urge to commit any violent acts in real life. Much like sports, games are a good stress reliever and can help people to work out their aggressive tendencies in a non-harmful way. There are millions of people like me that are professional adults, have real jobs, and play video games. Guess what? We're also voters and we won't hesitate to send you back to Connecticut in 2006.

    The bill that you are prepared to introduce would have the end result of introducing a type of censorship and control that is unprecedented over any type of media, whether it be books, films, or music.

    The bill you are proposing limits free speech and the creative expression of the artists that make video games, and don't try to think for one second that games are not an art form. As a United States Senator, you swore an oath to uphold the constitution. The fact that you would even consider introducing such legislation gives me serious doubts about your abilities as a senator and representative of the people.

    I have heard conservatives argue that video games contribute to violence in our youth, and I want to make sure that you don't believe those lies either. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, violent crime in schools has declined dramatically since 1994, the same time period that video game sales have increased dramatically. Please see the following study: http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violenc e-in-schools/national-statistics.html [virginia.edu]

    In conclusion, if you propose this bill I will not vote for your reelection to the US Senate next November, and will actively encourage everyone I know in Connecticut to do the same.

    Don't make the mistake of thinking all of your constituents aren't capable of thinking and acting for themselves. Video games are like any other media and should be controlled by an individual child's parents. If a parent doesn't want their kid playing Grand Theft Auto, they should watch their children and not let them play it. How hard is this if the child is living in the same house as the parent? It is just like any other media, whether it's a book, a movie, or television. The responsbility is the parents and the parents alone to ensure that their kids aren't exposed to things they find offensive. Government should never interfere in this.
    • I have heard conservatives argue that video games contribute to violence in our youth, and I want to make sure that you don't believe those lies either.

      My only problem with your letter (other than that it's a little confrontational) is your quickness to blame this on conservatives. Although there are certainly too many Jack Thompsons in the world, there are also plenty of Hillary Clintons and Tipper Gores. This is not a liberal-vs-conservative issue - it's a government-vs-individual issue.

      People who t

      • My only problem with your letter (other than that it's a little confrontational) is your quickness to blame this on conservatives. Although there are certainly too many Jack Thompsons in the world, there are also plenty of Hillary Clintons and Tipper Gores. This is not a liberal-vs-conservative issue - it's a government-vs-individual issue.

        People who tend to be pro-big-government also tend to be pro-censorship, and there are at least as many big government liberals as conservatives. The real lesson is that

  • P-A-R-E-N-T-I-N-G (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sierpinski ( 266120 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:37PM (#14149104)
    If parents would stop leaving it up to the ESRB or the government to decide whats best for their children, these kinds of things wouldn't even be an issue. What the hell is a 13-year-old doing with GTA: San Andreas in the first place? I doubt he has a job, SOMEONE gave him that money, or SOMEONE took him to the store to buy that game. If it wasn't Mom or Dad, consider it a probably-not-illegal version of contributing to the deliquency of a minor. If it was Mom or Dad, shame on you, its YOUR fault.

    Stop blaming the game companies and start being a parent. If you don't have the time to spend to screen games and movies for your children, and if you're just letting them have whatever they want, then your parenting skills need some work. Obviously Dora the Explorer is probably going to be okay. Any game that has a masked gunman on the front, more than likely will not be okay.

    My wife and I recently went to go see Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Our daughter (4.5 years old) has seen movies 1-3. We thought the dementors in part 3 would be a problem for her, but we told her ahead of time "This movie has some dark ghost-looking things in it, do you think you'll be okay with that." Of course she's going to say yes, (as she did) but it at least gave her a heads up when she did see them. We told her that we were seeing #4 before we did, and we told her why. Even at 4.5 years, she understood (or seemed to) that maybe that movie was too much for a little girl and that if we didn't think it was okay for her to watch it, then she wouldn't get to see it. It wasn't, and she didn't. She (luckily) understood that and didn't even give it a second thought. She just said "Will I get to watch it when I'm older?" and we of course said yes.

    Before you ask, was I going to see the movie anyway? Probably. The difference being that we went through the trouble of getting a family member to watch her while we went, instead of just taking her in the first place.

    A neighbor's kid watched The Ring [imdb.com] because he wasn't being supervised (at all) and he had horrific nightmares for about 3 months because of it. The parents got upset and started blaming the studio. Finally another neighbor (who wasn't afraid to speak her mind) said that it was basically their fault that they weren't involved in what their child was watching. It happened in their own house, on the family TV, while they were home.

    Any fool can have a child, but it takes a lot of effort to be able to call yourself a parent. Senator Clinton thinks she knows whats best for your children. While I might not always make the best decision with respect to my kids, I do try to, but the bottom line is that they are MY kids, and its MY decision.

    • Re:P-A-R-E-N-T-I-N-G (Score:3, Interesting)

      by CDarklock ( 869868 )
      > the bottom line is that they are MY kids,
      > and its MY decision.

      Bingo.

      My son Logan shot his first pedestrian in GTA:SA when he was eight months old.

      I have zero intention of censoring content. He needs to learn how to handle it. I will help him learn that, and I believe the earlier he learns to handle it, the better.

      If other children come over to the house, different rules apply. I will speak with their parents to see where *they* want the line drawn at my house. I will speak with my son about how oth
  • Seriously, the whole dang world isn't meant for kids. We're adults and we'd like to have some adult type fun. If you honestly beleive that the whole world is meant to be some damned Disney park, PG-rated place, you are a moron. "Southpark", while it is cartoon, is clearly not meant for children and neither is "Drawn Together", which is also cartoon. We keep "Playboy" and "Hustler" available for adults but access is denied to children, unless a parent buys one and gives it to them. The same goes for "R"
  • Aren't there real problems to solve?

    You know, like Iraq or the defecit or health care?

    What a screwed up country.

  • I know this is going to sound paranoid and cynical, but maybe the reason this bill has been written in such a way that it will certainly fail to withstand a judicial review is because it isn't actually meant to become law?

    Let's flash back to 1985. A group of senator's wives freak out over the sexually explicit lyrics of a Prince song and form a reactionary group called the PMRC (Parent's Music Resource Center). They use their husband's influence to bring their case before congress - particularly the influen
  • "This bill would help empower parents by putting them back in the driver's seat. It would ensure that children can't buy games the video game industry itself has determined to be inappropriate for them."

    So we need a law for parents to use their parental authority on what games their kids can buy and play? Maybe we need a constitutional amendment since a lot of parents ARE NOT using their parental authority to even raise their kids.

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close