Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Clinton To Take On Rockstar

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the who-doesn't-like-hotbutton-issues? dept.

Games 309

Hillary Clinton, protector of the innocent, has vowed to see an FTC investigation launched against Rockstar because of the 'Hot Coffee' sex mod (already under investigation by the ESRB). From the Gamespot article: "...following recent reports revealing that the video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas has graphic pornographic content which may be unlocked by following instructions on the Internet, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will hold a press conference to discuss legislative solutions to keep inappropriate video game content out of the hands of young people."ARGH!'s already rated M. It's out of the hands of children. If Rockstar actually left the content in that wasn't the smartest thing they've ever done, but it's not like they killed a puppy.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Politics, Sex, Violence, Video Games. (1)

torpor (458) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062568)

Bad mix. Unless you're a politician, pornographer, mafia don, or teenager, that is.

meanwhile (4, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062571)

meanwhile, Bill works feverishly to open the sex game in GTA before Hillary puts a stop to it altogether.

I like hillary (1, Informative)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062576)

However this is pure stupidity. The game has to have a downloaded patch to get it to work on a modded XBox. This is unlikely to fall in the hands of the average 7 year old by accident.

Re:I like hillary (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062662)

I didn't know the Hot Coffee mod was available for the X-Box, so far all the coverage I've seen has been about the PC version.

Re:I like hillary (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062719)

As I understand it, it's just a change in some data in the saved-game file, so it should work semi-easily on any platform where you can twiddle the memory card.

Re:I like hillary (2, Informative)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062938)

No, it doesn't affect the game save, it modifies the game itself (at least, the PC version that I downloaded) and affects all new and saved games.

I hate Hillary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13062707)

I'm sick of democrats catering to the moral majority.

Re:I like hillary (5, Insightful)

stinerman (812158) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063044)

She's already starting her run to the center for her presidential bid in 2008. Hopefully most people will see right through this.

She represents the worst of the Democrats in that she doesn't have any positions that won't change based on tomorrow's opinion poll. Not only that, she repesents the "government knows better than you" wing as well.

Re:I like hillary (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13063206)

the "government knows better than you" wing as well.

Which wing was that, the "both sides of the line" wing? Face it, when one party wants the government to intrude into our daily lives to make sure we're all safe and happy from ourselves, and the other party wants the government to intrude into our daily lives to make sure we're all safe and happy from terrorists, we're all boned.

When the Libertarian Party's alternative quits being "the government knows nothing", I'll vote for them.

Re:I like hillary (1)

superstick58 (809423) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063216)

She represents the worst of the Democrats in that she doesn't have any positions that won't change based on tomorrow's opinion poll. Not only that, she repesents the "government knows better than you" wing as well.

Aren't these two points of view exclusive? If the government knows better than you, they should not care what polls say. Instead, they will do what is "right" in their eyes and the public opinion be damned. I understand your description and it does seem to describe Hillary accurately enough, but perhaps you should mention that the reason she believes "government knows better" is that public opinion is such that they want government interference to "protect" our children.

This is difficult to express in a clear manner. Someone help me out.

Re:I like hillary (2, Insightful)

eyeye (653962) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063265)

They care what the polls say until they are elected..

Re:I like hillary (2, Interesting)

Cornflake917 (515940) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063417)

Not only that, she repesents the "government knows better than you" wing as well.

I would hope that the government is more informed and intelligent than than I am. If not, we are in bad shape.

Hence, we are in bad shape.

Re:I like hillary (3, Funny)

Cornflake917 (515940) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063440)

"I would hope that the government is more informed and intelligent than than I am."

Fortunately, I don't think it's that hard to be smarter than me.

Re:I like hillary (4, Insightful)

macdaddy357 (582412) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063122)

I wonder if the Junior Senator from New York and everyone else having a cow realize how much free press they are giving this game? People who had never considered buying it before will be curious now, and it will fly off the shelves! Rockstar couldn't have bought this kind of publicity.

legislative solutions? (5, Insightful)

enrico_suave (179651) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062586)

"... Hillary Rodham Clinton will hold a press conference to discuss legislative solutions to keep inappropriate video game content out of the hands of young people."

Can you legislate good parenting?


Re:legislative solutions? (1)

Punboy (737239) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062634)

yes. and there is a department devoted to enforcing such things. its called the Child Protection Agency.

Re:legislative solutions? (3, Insightful)

RealityMogul (663835) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063008)

They don't enforce "good" parenting, they enforce "required" parenting. There's a big difference.

Re:legislative solutions? (3, Insightful)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062635)

Legislate, nah :

Keeping parents partly accountable for misdeeds their kids might do : Yes.

I think Hillary shouldn't be focusing on this game (it's not even -allowed- to be sold to minors : So wtf is the problem), but more on her husband, who seems to be slipping his dick in stranger's mouths...

Re:legislative solutions? (2, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062740)

"So wtf is the problem), but more on her husband, who seems to be slipping his dick in stranger's mouths..."

The way this is worded, it is like you are complaining about something that happened to you at a campaign rally years back.

Maybe (0, Flamebait)

Safety Cap (253500) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063160)

He's bitter because ol' Bill doesn't give reach-arounds.

Re:legislative solutions? (5, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062677)

Not really, but for some reason a lot of politicians think that they can, or at least substitue legislation for the necessity of parenting.

Rather than parents taking an active interest in the gaming, television, and online habits of their children, politicians would rather pass laws regulating the flow of information and sale of materials that they feel are harmful to a child. Never mind the fact that these viewpoints are completely subjective.

Maybe I might feel it necessary for any children I might have to play GTA and experience violent behavior. Maybe I might want them to be able to view pornographic scenes in movies or video games. Who the hell do they think they are to act so self-rightous and decide what is and what is not good for the rest of the world? Essentially what we end up with is a form of censorship, someone else deciding what's appropriate for me to view. I don't mind a review board that posts recomendations and warns me of the content in a product (I don't want to pop in a cartoon and have it turn out to be horse porn or brutal executions), but I want to have the freedom to decide for myself or my children what is appropriate.

It falls right into line with the American Way though. Why do if yourself when you can get someone else to do it for you and save you the work? These politicians can garner votes by promoting their activities as good for the American public and can go home and sleep at night convincing themselves they've somehow done some good in the world.

Re:legislative solutions? (2, Interesting)

dusik (239139) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062875)

>> "...politicians would rather pass laws regulating the flow of information and sale of materials that they feel are harmful to a child."

I wonder how many of them actually care about the children. I think politicians will do just about anything to enhance their public opinion.

Re:legislative solutions? (2, Insightful)

RealityMogul (663835) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063049)

It's easy to care about something, but its harder to understand it at a level where you can affect positive change. It basically amounts to uneducated caring.

Re:legislative solutions? (1)

Phu5ion (838043) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063424)

Very true, the greatest motivator for a politician is re-election.

Re:legislative solutions? (2, Interesting)

Intrigued (757997) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063192)

Actually, in a twisted way, she is responding to her constituency. Parents these days will tell you how society has let them down, the schools failed them, didn't teach their children, and all the other ways that everyone failed to parent their children for them.

(irony)Someone has to take a stand and bring in the villiage to provide parenting for these children and the parents are sending a message to their representatives that they won't stand for society's failure at this.(/irony)

BTW - to head off any flaming, I have 5 children that I home-parent (yes, I'm one of those psycho parenting fundamentalists) It works for me.

I have a neighbor who's children were never taught the basic laws of not trespassing, respect of other people's property and laws dealing with fundamental consideration for others. The police have been out many times to fulfill society's obligation to teach these kids, but the police seem poorly suited for the job. I wouldn't have any problem with parents being forced to take parenting classes after the 3rd time that their kid has the police called on them. If it were my kid, I would happily go to the class even if I felt it was unjustified just to know that somewhere, some parent that really needs it is forced to go too.

If I truly want the government to stay out of my personal life, I respect the society laws in dealing with other people and teach my children to do the same so no one has to step in and do it for me. Then everyone can leave me the hell alone. I call it parenting.

substitue legislation for the necessity of parenti (4, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063426)

Not that I approve of "substitute legislation for the necessity of parenting," but if we've substituted day-care and latchkeys for parents, a lot of the damage to parenting has already been done.

Back in the 50's we had the classic "Leave it to Beaver" parenting model, where Dad went to work, and Mom stayed home with the kids. Perhaps Mom was swilling the liquor and playing poker with her friends, but mine wasn't, and AFAIK, the other moms in the neighborhood weren't. We had active and involved moms who enforced values, (to put it in current-speak) kissed skinned knees, and got us back up on our bikes, etc.

Fast-forward to today, where the norm is either two incomes, or a single working income. Young kids are in day-care - presumably the low-cost provider, and older kids lock the doors after getting home from school. If parents get home at 5:00 and put the kids to bed at 9:00, that's 4 hours, 5 if you include an hour in the morning. You can "teach" all you want during that 4-5 hours, but that's dwarfed by the "imprint time" with the sitter for small kids and classmates/media for larger kids. But then again, two wrongs don't make a right. Further legislation doesn't correct the problem of busy parents, it only tries to hide it.

Not that I think 2 working parents is always bad. Some families can handle it. I just don't think it's good as the "standard model" for our society. But from the Government's point of view, it's great! Put Mom to work and you also partially finance a day-care worker, collecting taxes from both. You also find less cooking-from-scratch and more prepared foods, with attendant higher corporate profits (taxes, again) and job creation rates.

Re:legislative solutions? (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062797)

It takes a government to raise your child.

Re:legislative solutions? (1)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062800)

Can you legislate good parenting?

Hard to say. Most politicians seem to think it is worth spending time talking about it, for no other apparent reason than to have lobbyist fill their coffers trying to 'influence' the decisions - be that yes, no, or not make one.

hurting themselves (1)

reedsr (891163) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062588)

All of the parties that are complaining are most likely just increasing sales, don't they know that the more people hear about a game being terrible (morally that is) the more it will sell? when a game is outlawed it is desired even more by those that are told they are not supposed to have it.

Re:hurting themselves (1)

dusik (239139) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062814)

Amen to that. Until recently I was content just watching my girlfriend play her copy of San Andreas. Now I'm starting to get the urge to go and shell out $50 for my own box. I might even be willing to boot into Windows to play it!

People picking on sexual content really piss me off. Go advocate good parenting for a change!

Re:hurting themselves (1)

toad3k (882007) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063038)

This game is awesome. I've been playing it non stop all week now. I can't believe I almost didn't get it.

In any case, this is just the latest round of rockstar vs the establishment. Every grand theft auto from the very first one has been discussed publicly by whatever representative based government felt the need.

The gta london expansion for the first gta was released specifically to snub the UK government. I believe Australia once banned gta2 (my memory is fuzzy though). Lieberdickhead used gta as his platform to fame which resulted in the establishment of the ESRB.

If anything, rockstar is providing a political service. Free publicity for rockstar, free publicity for politicians.

Something Familiar - Here to Help (4, Insightful)

Sammich (623527) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062608)

We are the from the Government...we're here to help

Re:Something Familiar - Here to Help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13063270)

That sounds like the self-righteous position that many Republicans take until they themselves are laid off or disabled and require the help of government's generous welfare system because their family and church did not come through for them.

Government Help != Bad

Thibnk of the children (1)

PhilippeT (697931) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062615)

keep inappropriate video game content out of the hands of young people."
Ok then make a law any parent that purchases games for their kids is legally responsible to ensure that the child playing meets the ratting. We all know that making the retailer responsible is pointless since kids don't buy the games they get mommy and daddy to do it.

Only problem is that wouldn't get her votes so it isn't going to happen.

Re:Thibnk of the children (1)

jclast (888957) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062688)

Although it's not a replacement for good parenting, wouldn't the easiest law to implement be on the retailer?

If we make the ratings enforcable instead of just letters on the box, and retailers had to pay a fine if somebody bought too young and the retailers had to warn everybody about the content of games rated either 'M' or 'AO', I think we'd see a lot less of these cases.

We'd have just as many kids playing these games, but then we'd all be covered by the law. We all took responsibility for our action because we listened to the clerk's spiel about the game content and chose to pay for it anyhow. If we then choose to give the game to our children, it's not the video game company's fault. After all, there's a rating on the box, and the clerk told us there would be hookers.

You can't force common sense, but you can force people to be legally informed (like Miranda).

Re:Thibnk of the children (1)

PhilippeT (697931) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062753)

When would the clerk say this to the parent? After they ask them if they want to use their super save bonus card or if they want to sign up for a special discount card. The public doesn't care. Congress cares because the media is making a big story about it and if they get there names in the article it will raise there re-election chances.

You know, they say (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13062621)

I hear if yous end slashdot a special GET request, it'll redirect you to porn.

I demand an investigation.

Re:You know, they say (1)

bleaknik (780571) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062836)

*Shakes Fist*

I'll send you a special GET [] request, boy!

Makes sense (not!) (5, Insightful)

clausiam (609879) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062631)

...keep inappropriate content out of the hands of young people...

Let's see:

* Killing pedestrians by running them over: Appropriate for children.
* Shooting people in the head: No problem, kids are ok with that
* Toasting cops with flamethrowers: Hey, that's cool, go on my little angel dear.
* Nudity and pornographical images: What is this, I'll call my congress[wo]man immediately. They need to stop this filth from getting to innocent kids.

Somebody really need to get their priorities right! Not to mention it already has an M-rating as someone already mentioned in another post.

Re:Makes sense (not!) (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063016)

This is America! Violence is good, wholesome, and can even be on local public channels!

Showing a nipple? Put that woman in jail!!!

Yep... ass backwards.

Maybe this is a good thing, though. If stuff like this keeps coming up, maybe the nation will see that we are backwards compared with the rest of the world??

Give me a fucking break. (1)

bartyboy (99076) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063311)

GTA is rated M, or 17+. It says so right on the box [] . This is NOT a game for kids.

Believe it or not, there are many parents out there who don't allow their kids to watch movies or play games because they have either too much violence or too much sex. They don't want to expose their kids to what in their view is not a good influence. They use the ratings on movies and video games, and often check out the material themselves.

They know that children need guidence and that the kids may not understand many of the things that seem obvious to adults.
Sure, there are some parents who believe that children should be exposed to everything and draw their own conclusions about their experiences, but these people are a minority.

So the "This is America, violence is OK but sex is not" statement simply isn't true when it comes to most parents. It's used by politicians who are trying to appeal to a specific demographic.

Re:Makes sense (not!) (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063459)

"Somebody really need to get their priorities right!"

To be fair, there is a good deal more teen pregnancy going on than teen toasting-cops-with flamethrowersancy...

At least... (1)

LordEd (840443) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062641)

At least TFA actually acknowledges that the game is rated 17+.

While the game is rated M, and therefore not readily sold to those below the age of 17, the mod is easily available online.

Thank you TFA... I will go back to blaming parents again.

TFA misses the point (1)

PhilippeT (697931) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062691)

Yes but TFA misses the point in that "the mod is easily available online" doesn't mean kids will get to see it... they need the F'ing game first...
Now of course parents who have no clue what a "mod" is will be thinking Rockstar has somehow made porn available on the Internet, what's that those same parents don't bother checking where on the Internet their kids... O dear don't tell them it's full of free porn or else they might want the Internet company investigated.

Re:TFA misses the point (1)

dusik (239139) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062970)

Indeed. Actually, people are often afraid of the unknown. The concept of "Internet" and "mod" in this case are the mysterious unknown. People are also often irrationally afraid for their kids.

The question is, how do we address those fears in this case. Education maybe?

>> "A psychopath can't tell the difference between right and wrong. A sociopath knows the difference - he just doesn't care."

According to your sig, the people enraged about Rockstar must be psychopaths then? ;)

Re:TFA misses the point (1)

PhilippeT (697931) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063075)

Education won't help, if the article stated that a Modification to the original game is what caused this people wouldn't be angry at Rockstar since someone modified their game...

It's like me taking an episode of the Simpson and replacing every frame of Marge with a porn actress wearing no clothing.

Would Hilary and co be angry at Fox for making the Simpson's.

I know the modder says the content was already in but no one, to my knowledge, has proved/disproved this.

Re:TFA misses the point (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063169)

Forget the guess-work. Just sit back and enjoy watching Hillary chasing ambulances and hope one of them hits her.

This is sooooo contradictory (1)

k3v0 (592611) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062649)

Everyone is getting upset about some non-graphic sex scenes in a video game where you walk around beating and killing people?

FTC? (1)

Fr05t (69968) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062652)

I'm Canadian and not really educated in what government bodies handle what, but the FTC on video games? I didn't realize that was something inside their scope.

As I said before it is a 17+ game. I think the real problem and news head line is "Parents allow 10 year old kids to play games clearly marked 17+" or "EB sells age 17+ games to preteens".

Oh well at least Rockstars PR move which tossed out the "H" word has all the uninformed news sources spewing more favorable B.S.

Headlines from google news:
"Hackers Add Sex Scenes to Game Red Herring
Hackers Modify PC Game New York Times"

Re:FTC? (1)

bleaknik (780571) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063104)

Fr05t, you raise some interesting questions that are facing the people of the United States.

When the FTC was initially formed, it was designed to protect the US from monopolistic practices []

Unfortunately since its conception it has taken a more active role in the rest of our lives. Today, it does have the authority to regulate. Unfortunately our government is growing too large, and they are trying to micromanage the peasants.

And that's the issue here. GTA is rated M, and therefore is intended to only be sold to 17+. As I understand it, the ESRB [] is a completely independent organization that is supposed to thoroughly test each game before they make their ratings.

While I cannot find documentation to prove it, I believe their is legislation that requires retailers to ID those who may be too young for the content, similar to the way movie theatres ID their patrons. (Do any fellow /.ers have information about this possible legislation?)

Irregardlessly, can we blame anyone for our irresponsibility when it comes to the material that comes before our kids. I am not a parent, nor do I plan on it (though my fianceé may disagree)... I will not/would not/shall not let my kid play this sort of crap. You cannot legislate good parenting.

Nor should the FTC or Senator Clinton attack Rockstar. They created a game intended for mature audience, and they succeeded at that (sales numbers will show for that). Everyone in the US should realize that this attack on a video game company is actually an attack on our freedoms.

Of course we could try to write our legislators, but what will this actually accomplish? I once read that an email is worth something like 200 voter opinions, a letter is worth 400, and a call is worth 1000. /shrug.

Re:FTC? (1)

pthor1231 (885423) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063446)

While I agree with your post, don't use the word "Irregardless" It's a spawn of other words, use regardless instead

Interview with Mrs. Clinton (1)

FrontalLobe (897758) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062664)

"Argh! I don't get technology... Better start banning stuff. That'll make all the problems go away."

Good Idea, Bad Idea (1)

Wraithfighter (604788) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062673)

Look, if Rockstar did leave this code in there, then they screwed up big time. I mean, yes, the game is rated Mature, but had the ESRB been shown a sex minigame during rating then the game would be rated AO.

However, any hearing about the mod should be held after the ESRB does its report, makes its findings, and changes GTA's rating if neccessary. Otherwise its too great a chance that the gov may just get in the way of the actual investigation.

Re:Good Idea, Bad Idea (2, Insightful)

whodunnit (238223) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062766)

Accually Probably not. God of War had a sex mini game included in it, that you didn't have to crack the game to access. And it only has a mature rating.

Re:Good Idea, Bad Idea (1)

LordEd (840443) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062789)

... and if the game was rated AO, all those 17 YO kids would NEVER be corrupted into thinking about sex.

Re:Good Idea, Bad Idea (1)

PhilippeT (697931) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062807)

And the government of the USA would never want to get in the way of an actual investigation.

Not fit to make that decision. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13062676)

I'm sorry, but the federal government is not fit to make any kind of lifestyle decisions, much less regulate modded video games. It's not the government's job to be mother. So thanks but no thanks Hillary, you're neither needed nor wanted.

If nothing else, now rockstar will really not support mods, which is a shame because it's what makes or breaks PC games these days...

Re:Not fit to make that decision. (1)

Fr05t (69968) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062821)

"If nothing else, now rockstar will really not support mods, which is a shame because it's what makes or breaks PC games these days..."

Excellent point.. if this whole monkey poop fight actually goes anywhere it could have serious long term consequences for games. Up until now a lot of game companies have encouraged modding, or at least looked the other way legally because it was beneficial to them and the community.

Now if Rockstar gets burned over this we could see BF3, HF3, Star Craft: Ghost, etc being locked down tight and law suits under the DCMA flying. Really companies would be justified in doing so to protect themselves from possible government/legal action. They shouldn't have to, but they will.

I'm in Canada so I can't really contact my US senators/congress people, but I would recommend every US slashdot reader contacts theirs and Mrs. Clinton. Make sure you really make the point of this game being rated for 17+.

How about getting the facts right first? (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062705)

Rockstar has claimed that the minigames were *not* in the game at all, but that the modification added them, given that the modification is rather large that might be true, ie. its not just a 'enable_porn_minigame = 1' thing. Not sure if that claim is actually true, but if it is that surly blasts the whole thing away. I mean should we outlaw the internet explorer and google just because I can 'unlock' porn with it by entering that word into the search-inputbox?

I am all for regulating video games and making age ratings mandatory, but this whole issue is really rather pointless. Even if Rockstar left the minigames in, people with access to the internet have far easier ways to get far worse porn with a few clicks.

Re:How about getting the facts right first? (3, Informative)

McCarron (689690) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062988)

Rockstar's claim in PR talk. On my Xbox version a simple byte flag change in my saved game file unlocked that minigame, no files added/removed from the game. It's been called the censor flag. The Xbox version also has clothes on the players in the minigame, but I've heard the PC version they are nude.

The larger PC mods simply add more features hacks to make the mod easier to pull off and more interesting. And they contain the changed file, not instructions on what bytes to change in the files to achieve the result.

The thing I'm confused about, other games such as Playboy Mansion on the Xbox has an even more graphic love scenes in the game than in San Andreas, because the Playboy mansion scenes the players are nude, not in GTA Xbox. That "mode" don't have to be unlocked, it's part of the game. It is also an M rated game, just like GTA. The only difference? One is a LOT more popular because it's a much better game, that would be GTA.

I too agree with improved regulation of age ratings for Video Games, and movies. Because if a parent wants their 8 year old kid to play GTA, they'll buy it for the kid reguardless. But don't just let the kid go and buy the game, let the parent decide if the kid is mature enough to play it.

Stupid (1)

hypnoticstoat (890677) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062712)

Hilary is just still pissed off because she got made to look like a fool by Bill partaking of some "hot coffee" action of his own in the oval office (apparantly he had his with cream.

Naked Sims, film at 11 (4, Funny)

jon787 (512497) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062737)

Not investigating Maxis over The Sims Nude Patch []


Thanks Hillary (5, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062765)

...some of us are tired of characterizations of us liberals as meddlers in issues that should be a matter of personal responsibility. You seem to be doing all you can to persuade everyone otherwise.

If a parent allows a child to play a game named "Grand Theft Auto" (a major crime), with a clearly visible rating that clearly identifies it as being for adults, then it's hard to see how this is any fault of the publisher or anyone else but the parent concerned.

It's also hard to see the obsession with preventing children from seeing anything "sexual" while, apparently, being unconcerned about children coming across something violent. Here's a major clue for you, speaking as someone who was a child for 12 years of my life, and a teenager for about eight: children think stuff to do with sex is icky anyway. As for teenagers, on the other hand, they'll find something sexual in a church newsletter. Hidden scenes in stupid video games aren't going to make a major difference.

A second issue you may not realise is that sex is, fundamentally, neutral. It can be used for good and for bad. It is not inherently evil and to be used only under extreme circumstances, such as when bad things threaten you. In fact, it's actually, usually, a beautiful thing. This is not true of violence. So why people like yourself give a stuff about the former but not the latter will... god, am I really pointing this out? I must be the 912,291th person on Slashdot *alone* to have pointed out this rather obvious fact.

Seriously. I appreciate that you, Senator, as someone born at the tender age of 21, probably do not realise any of this and so have some screwed up views on the subject. They may or may not be distantly connected with people close to you. For all I know, a night in bed with Bill is worse than five rounds with Muhammed Ali. Nevertheless, please do us all a favour and shut the f--- up. You do not know what you're talking about. You are meddling in a way that gives those of us that would otherwise support you a bad name. If this is part of your presidential ambitions, I think I speak for most of the liberals on Slashdot when I say: Kerry '08.

Re:Thanks Hillary (4, Informative)

metamatic (202216) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062920)

In case you aren't aware, Hillary Clinton is planning a Presidential run. She has been going after various right-wing concerns in an attempt to make herself look more palatable to what the Democrats perceive as the mainstream of US politics.

She has been talking about abortion as a "sad, tragic choice" that should happen "only in very rare circumstances", supporting the war in Iraq, talking about how she's adamantly against illegal immigration, and so on. It's all rather blatant. I'll be curious to see if it works.

Re:Thanks Hillary (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063006)

I think she's doing all that to draw fire from whoever they field as the real candidate. I mean c'mon, really. If the Democrats put her up as their candidate in '08, I'm starting a write-in campaign for J. Danforth Quayle!

Re:Thanks Hillary (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063054)

In case you aren't aware, Hillary Clinton is planning a Presidential run.
I did actually mention that ;)
She has been talking about abortion as a "sad, tragic choice" that should happen "only in very rare circumstances"
In my experience, that's what most people agree with, and I'm one of them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is the Senator's actual position. Support for the right has never implied support for the act. It's a falacy promoted by the media and extreme right that anyone who's pro-choice is pro-abortion.

Nonetheless, if the GTA "outrage" is bogus, then she's fundamentally being dishonest, whipping up hysteria regardless of the victims of the hysteria. I cannot support any politician that does that.

Re:Thanks Hillary (1)

kevin lyda (4803) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063092)

sadly a majority of americans disagree with you. and even though she's doing this i'm sure right wing radio is saying the "sex thing" in "that video game" is all the work of liberals.

republican pennsylvania senator rick santorum blamed all the liberals in boston for the ***worldwide*** church abuse scandals. blaming liberals for something dumb in a video game is downright sane compared to that one.

Re:Thanks Hillary (2, Insightful)

Epi-man (59145) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063435)

Nonetheless, if the GTA "outrage" is bogus, then she's fundamentally being dishonest,

Interesting, I don't believe I have ever seen Hillary as being fundamentally honest. Have you watched and listened to her over the past 13 years?

Re:Thanks Hillary (1)

styxlord (9897) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062935)

The scary thing is that the conservatives are probably going to be more outraged that a tit was exposed than government becoming more involved in "parenting". Hillary likely saw this as an opportunity to lead a bipartisan attack on this travesty of home grown American values ...

Re:Thanks Hillary (1)

nege (263655) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063382)

You do of course realize this has nothing to do with children at all. It is just various politicians seeing this as something to capitalize on.

Hillary is clearly using this simply as a means to get into a public debate about an "issue" that involves something important, like "kids". Never you mind that the actual substance of the issue is completely and fundamentally flawed, which you did a superb job of expounding upon.

That is my problem with the democratic party right now, they try too HARD by trying to do what they think the public perceives as "right", as opposed to just DOING what is right in the first place. I am thinking more and more about joining the libertarian party.

New Show (1)

hypnoticstoat (890677) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062805)

"Ladies & gentlemen, welcome to the new series of the ever popular show "Overhyped Media Moral Outrage!". After our previous successes in villanising the likes of Doom & Manhunt, this year we turn our attentions to that firm favorite with the kiddies GTA:San Andreas." Coming up after this our Saturday night film "Meet The Parents"

What political party ... (2, Insightful)

jkujawa (56195) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062808)

Is Hillary trying to seek the Presidential nomination from again?

Sure looks like a Republican from here.

Re:What political party ... (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062967)

Hillary is just doing what her husband did quite succesfully in 1996 when he ran his campaign based on the most popular bits of the "Contract with America." She knows she's getting the Democratic nomination if she wants it. She might as well pander as far right as she can so she can practically own the swing vote. She will do this as long as liberal voters let her get away with it.

Bush also did something similar with his "Compassionate Conservative" campaign back in 2000. You could see him tilting farther left the more certain he was of the nomination. Conservatives thought he was just telling voters what they wanted to hear so he would get elected. Many of them are still reeling from some of the programs he passed during that time even though he told them he was going to push them back in 2000 (massive education spending and the Social Security Prescription plan, among other things).

Re:What political party ... (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063142)

She might as well pander as far right as she can so she can practically own the swing vote.

That strategy didn't work well with Mr. Gore or Mr. Kerry. In this case, I think you may be right, though. The soccer mom center-right will vote for her because she's female ... not to mention many of the anarcho-feminists coming out of the woodwork to vote for her.

Actually it has been her party (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063414)

that goes after this type of material more often.

However I will agree that Hillary is trying to gain press attention in a particular area so she can sell herself to middle America.

Whether or not this is something that will help her is immaterial, the key issue is the opponent she chose cannot withstand her position in Government or the media draw she has. In other words, she is playing a safe bet here.

Political Analysis (2, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062812)

For all those who don't know, this is the equivilant of 'Copy Article Text' karma whores.

On Slashdot, you just go out, find the article, and make sure you are among the first to paste it into yor 'Comment' box. Mods with no brains mark it up. Then, others copy the article text, but because they weren't first, get modded down.

In the political world, you go out, find a hot button topic, and make sure you are amoung the first to 'go after it', while in reality doing nothing. Voters with no brains vote for you. Then, Jesse Jackson goes after the issue, but because he wasn't first, people roll their eyes and laugh.

FUD (3, Insightful)

n3k5 (606163) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062825)

Hillary Clinton alrady spread FUD about GTA* being a 'murder simulator'; either she is an idiot for critisising a game she never played, or if she played it and still gives the public this biased view, she's a liar. As i previously said [] , it's just an arcade game about driving from A to B and then maybe to C, and shooting some targets every now and then. There's no real death, no real sex. Not even virtually real. Just Pac-Man-like game mechanics (but quite entertaining). The player is rewarded for helping people, punished for harming innocents, and taught how to be a better driver.

Now she has found another lump of coal to throw on her fire and pretends that San Andreas has pornographic content, which is like saying Quake 3 Arena has a brutally realistic damage model (you just need to install this little mod, but most of the code is allready in there!). Again, that's either idiotic or an outright lie. And the large majority of the population (read: voters) isn't all that familiar with this matter and just believes her.

Boo for sex (3, Funny)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062830)

Sex is a clearly dangerous and malevolent thing that needs wiped from our society.
If nobody had sex , then pretty soon (about 100 years tops ), then their would be no crime , No poverty , no overcrowding , no more poloution , many animals species would be allowed to thrive.
I clap my hands for Hillary Clitnon , and support her cause to wipe out Humanity .
Security Welfare ,Senator Clinton .

Playing devil's advocate (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13062842)

Ok, leaving aside for the moment the issue of who's making the comments (and yes, she's a divisive figure), I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that Rockstar are potentially in the wrong.

When they submitted this game for its ESRB rating, they did not include any notification the "hot chocolate" content. The result of this is that the ESRB rating was potentially inappropriate for the actual game. Now, it's true that in order to see this content, you have to hack around with the game a bit, but this doesn't fundamentally change the problem. Either Rockstar intended this as an "easter egg", in which case they deliberately mislead the ESRB, or else they did not intend it to ever be accessible, in which case they are incompetent.

A movies-style ratings system is the best hope that the videogames industry has of avoiding outright censorship. We're all (I presume, posting on slashdot) agreed that for games to be banned outright on the basis of their content, or for certain types of content (which is not covered by existing criminal laws) to be deemed completely taboo and out of bounds even for adult customers, is a bad thing. Depending on who you ask, opinions on an age-control system seem to range from "a good thing" to "bad, but tolerable".

However, avoiding precisely the kind of legislative blunt instruments that HRC is proposing here relies on the industry playing by the existing rules. If Rockstar has failed to do so, either through malice or incompetence, then they deserve censure.

What happened to the village? (2, Funny)

lbmouse (473316) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062927)

Clinton will hold a press conference to discuss legislative solutions to keep inappropriate video game content out of the hands of young people.

Isn't that the parents' responsibility?

I don't want the government raising my children. It was bad enough when Clinton wanted a village to do it... I definitely don't want a bunch of bureaucrats to do it unless they want to come over to change dirty diapers and clean up puke.

Re:What happened to the village? (2, Funny)

bleaknik (780571) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063146)

I pay enough in taxes, I think they should provide those services. While they're at it, the pipework in my house need replacing, my garage needs cleaning, and my car needs an oil change...

This just in ... (1)

Tink2000 (524407) | more than 9 years ago | (#13062954)

Kids playing the GTA series of games, purchased most likely by their parents &/or guardians, cannot find pr0n on the internet, but have no problem finding the patch for this game that allows for crudely rendered sexual situations amid an already extremely violent video game. (Yes, I'm qualified to say it's violent, I've been playing it exclusively for almost a month now. For what it's worth, I find the whole girlfriend thing annoying and irritating.)

I'm still hoping for the off chance that HRC doesn't run for president in '08 and thereby assuring the American People of yet another Republican term.

Hillary the Centrist (1)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063045)

This is nothing more than Clinton trying to plant seeds which will (in her campaign directors' minds) help her appear not quite as left-leaning in '08. It's retarded but in general people in this country want to vote for someone who is perceived as "pro-morality" -- which ironically disqualifies just about every Senator and Governor in the USA.

So sex is the only BAD thing to have in a game? (2, Interesting)

harryman100 (631145) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063066)

What kind of message is this going to give to kids really? It seems the issue is this:

"There's no problem with a game containing large amounts of violence and illegal activity, PROVIDING there's no sex in it!"

Really, if I was a parent (which currently I'm not) I'd be much more worried about the violence and stuff in GTA, than any amount of sex. Maybe if it was rape, then I'd be a little more sympathetic to their point of view.

I don't pretend to understand the ratings system in america, but in good old Blighty, GTA is rated 18, which means you can't buy it if you're under 18, yet you're allowed to have sex in real life at the age of 16. (which brings up an interesting debate as to why porn films are also rated 18 - but thats not the topic)

Really, this is a non issue, and the world could do with lightening up a bit on the whole sex issue. There really is nothing offensive about it, and depending upon your religion (if any), can be viewed as a good healthy (if you are sensible) recreational activity...

Messed up. (1)

Masterr (878152) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063180)

This pisses me of for several reasons. 1) IT'S A MOD. Rockstar locked down the code for the sex mini game so that it was completely inaccessable to the normal player. This can ONLY be accessed by installing a 3rd party mod that unlocks it. Rockstar did not write this mod and is not distributing it, nor are they giving instruction on where to get it or how to use it. 2) The game has a 17+ Rating.... who the hell is 17 and is not old enough to watch virtual porn? I know the legal age is 18, but for fucks sake who cares? Age of concent in several states is 17 anyway, so why can't you watch porn while you are having sex? And besides, it's not even very realistic. I have played it. The man still has on full cloathing, no penis showing. The women, while naked, looks pretty fake and you don't see any shots of her sexual organs. They do show sex like movements but they are very fake looking and you can't see anything anyway. Jeeze you could have made the argument about GTA3 where you pick up a hooker and the car shakes. You can't see squat. 3) Many places already gave SA a 18+ rating anyway. These children being corrupted you speak of must not have someone monitoring what they play. You know who's job that is mom and dad? YOURS! Don't let you 8 year old son play a game rated for 17 or 18 year olds and older. It contains violence, drug use, sexual comments, language, etc. Your child should not be playing it and because of that there is such a thing as an ESRB rating that so you, mom, can know what is safe for you children to play and what is not. Use it. Anyway, I should stop before i turn blue.

Elephant Dung and urine in a jar. (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063202)

if fine if it is used to defrace religeious stuff, but Rockstar games is fair fodder......????

I don't think so! I agree with Penn & Teller that what hillary is doing to Rockstar is BULLSHIT!!!!!

I don't understand. (2, Insightful)

MeanderingMind (884641) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063207)

Why is it that people can't come out and say exactly what the real problem is?

If we assume that Rockstar actually coded the sex scenes, and then removed access to them, how can we logically punish them for this? There isn't a secret button combination or set of actions you can use to activate the scenes, you have to hack the game to do it. How can we hold Rockstar responsible for this?

It seems to me the real reason this issue is being pushed is because Rockstar may have at one point intended to include scenes such as these in the game. The real reason why Rockstar is under fire (aside from being the de facto target of all video game ignoramus) is because Rockstar may have intended to put something like this in GTA:SA, and may still intend to do so in the future.

Honestly though, if the final version of the game contains no way in which these scenes can be accessed without using tools unavailible within the game, how can we blame Rockstar?

Priorities (1)

Blitzenn (554788) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063219)

Yea, this issue is so much more important than fixing the problem of people dying in this country because they cannot afford healthcare. I am so glad to see that Clinton cares more about what our children see rather than if they or ther parents can survive a curable illness because they cannot afford to see a doctor and or the medication to correct the problem.

Mature rating should allow nudity (1)

ironfroggy (262096) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063246)

The M rating for video games is on par with movies' R rating. Both restrict anyone under the age of 17 and associate an amount of maturity that should be present to watch the film or play the game. Although, we won't get into how much maturity most 17 year olds have. So, if rated R movies can show nudity, why can't rated M games? That is all.

And Jack Thompson's reply.... (1)

xerxesVII (707232) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063261)

John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146

July 14, 2005

Open Letter to the Members of the Entertainment Software Association:

Activision, Inc.
Atari, Inc.
Buena Vista Games, Inc.
Capcom USA, Inc.
Crave Entertainment
Eidos Interactive
Electronic Arts
Her Interactive, Inc.
id Software
Konami Digital Entertainment America
Microsoft Corporation
Midway Games, Inc.
Namco Hometek, Inc.
Nintendo of America Inc.
NovaLogic, Inc.
SEGA of America, Inc.
Sony Computer Entertainment America
Square Enix, Inc.
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
THQ, Inc.
Ubisoft Entertainment, Inc.
Vivendi Universal Games
Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment Inc.
Wild Tangent

Dear ESA Members:

Today, United States Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, with initiatives she will announce at a 10 am news conference in our nation's capital, is acting decisively in furtherance of what for her has been a strong leadership role on these issues since Columbine--a tragedy caused in part by the violent video game industry. Millions of American parents should be thankful to the Senator for striking back against what can be fairly called "Grand Theft Innocence" at the expense of our children by only some within your industry.

It has been my privilege, as a lifelong Republican, to provide facts--not feelings--about the reckless practices of certain members of this industry, some of which are Members of the ESA, in the midst of responsible fact-gathering by Senator Rodham Clinton's staff. The Senator is not a newcomer on this issue. She has been an abiding and loyal advocate for parents who oppose predatory, fraudulent practices by some within your video game industry.

I am happy to help the Senator, just as I have worked with Democrats like Senator Joseph Lieberman and Washington State Representative Mary Lou Dickerson, as well as with fellow Republicans, for what for me have been nearly seven years of effort to try to get certain companies within the video game industry to start acting like good corporate citizens. Senator Rodham Clinton is today at the forefront of an issue that is not partisan in nature, nor should it be. The Republican Party would do well to wake up and realize that Senator Clinton is about the work that needs to be done. Today is a mere extension of her years of commitment. This is not politics. This is leadership.

As a lifelong Republican who ran against Janet Reno, I can note that whereas the largest chapter of the National Organization for Women, located in New York, has had me address them regarding the misogyny and violence against women depicted in the Grand Theft Auto games, the supposedly "family values" Republican President of the United States, George W. Bush, has consistently turned away from parents who have asked him to speak out against the entertainment industry's assault on our children.

The evening in January 2000 that I appeared on NBC Nightly News to talk about the link between violent games and Columbine, Tom Brokaw asked then Governor Bush about that link and what he as President would do about it? George Bush simply said "Parents just have to be better parents." He should trying telling that to my clients in Paducah whose three daughters were gunned down by 14-year-old video gamer Michael Carneal, who trained on Doom to become a more efficient killer. What did they, as parents, Mr. President, do wrong? Was sending their kids to school their mistake?

George Bush, as Governor of Texas, gave a state tax break to Id Software of Dallas, the makers of Doom, after Columbine, for Heaven's sake, and it is his Department of Defense which has subsidized with taxpayer dollars the creation of violent video games for teen consumption at the Institute for Creative Technologies at the University of Southern California. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has increased funding for this taxpayer rip-off since my appearance on ABC's World News Tonight more than two years ago exposing this scandal. Don Rumsfeld is supposed to be catching terrorists, not training them.

But I turn to the one man most responsible for the valuable initiative taken by Senator Rodham Clinton today. That man is the Entertainment Software Association's president, Doug Lowenstein. Let me explain to you ESA Members exactly why that is the case:

The inept fashion in which ESA has "managed" the "Hot Coffee" mod scandal swirling around your industry and Take-Two's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas has given Senator Rodham Clinton a reason and a mandate to act. She has filled the leadership void caused by Doug Lowenstein. For a month Doug Lowenstein and his ESA pretended that there was no mod, that there was no scandal, that there was no need for any action whatsoever by ESA. How wrong he was. Today proves it.

While Mr. Lowenstein dithered and fiddled, concerns about the scandal grew deeper, and knowledge about its details were more widely disseminated. When the scandal spread, I found out about it and acted, as did Dr. David Walsh, a clinical psychologist who is going to be at the Senator's side today in Washington. Doug Lowenstein could have prevented what is going to happen today, but he preferred to shoot the messengers. It is his chronic style.

Instead of acting like a responsible adult by trying to get to the bottom of this scandal, Doug Lowenstein did what he has always done at the ESA: He has first said there is "no problem" and then he has embarked on his scorched earth policy to try to discredit anyone who suggests there is a problem. Lowenstein has unleashed his p.r. (pillory and ruin) squad on respected and powerful legislators like California Assemblyman Yee, also a psychologist, who have expressed concerns about Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and the mod scandal. Lowenstein's approach, as always, is to question Assemblyman Yee's motives. No opponent could possibly be acting upon principle, in the world according to Doug Lowenstein. Only he is the oracle of truth. All others are scum. It is his way.

His approach, as the President of your Entertainment Software Association, is to demonize critics and to engage in ad hominem jihads intended to obscure real concerns about real industry abuses. All this does is deepen the resolve of your critics to act. I know.

I saw this attack dog mentality by Lowenstein in full bloom in the two appearances I was privileged to enjoy on CBS's 60 Minutes in 1999, the Sunday after Columbine, and more recently in March of this year. Lowenstein tried to bully CBS both times, achieving by his scare tactics the distrust of an entire news organization. News organizations don't trust ESA because Doug Lowenstein is its head. Why should they? He treats them like dirt.

Lowenstein has done this time and time again, alienating lawmakers and turning off media with his "You're a fool, and I'm a genius" mindset. With friends like Lowenstein, your industry doesn't need any enemies. But he winds up growing them like topsy.

Jack Valenti, as the head of the MPAA, had the grace and the courage to debate me and other critics on occasion. He felt that was his job. Lowenstein, on the other hand, has a standing policy to refuse to appear together with me on any stage or on any television program in which I might debate him face to face. Jack Valenti had the courage of his convictions. Doug Lowenstein travels with his own private make-up artist. Did you all know that? Obscuring personal and industry warts is a full time job for this man.

Doug Lowenstein has merely the courage to stand up at E3 and rant to the video game faithful about people like Senator Rodham Clinton. This is not courage. This is cowardice. It is the cowardice that all bullies display.

Take-Two's new game coming out in October featuring violence by students in a school setting (the next scandal that is brewing on Lowenstein's watch) ought to be renamed "Doug." Bullying is not real leadership. It is a stopgap measure until real leadership shows up. Enter Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Is Lowenstein's the kind of "leadership" the Members of ESA are paying for?

When Hitler invaded Russia, opening up an Eastern offensive on the eve of winter, Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill noted that "Hitler must have been rather loosely educated, not having learned the lesson of Napoleon's autumn advance on Moscow."

Your Doug Lowenstein is similarly "loosely educated" about the United States Constitution. I have never, in my eighteen years of public interest law practice against the excesses of the entertainment industry, run into an individual more devoid of even an elementary understanding of the meaning and scope of the First Amendment. Even Howard Stern's lawyers look like Alexander Hamilton compared to Lowenstein.

Doug Lowenstein embarrasses each and every one of you when he holds forth about what the "Founders" intended when they drafted the Bill of Rights. For Doug, the Founders are GTA's Tommy Vercetti and Carl Johnson. Doug never met a pixilated prostitute he didn't like, and I'm sure James Madison would be impressed.

If the ESA wants as its president a thug who demonizes critics of your industry's criminal, frauduelnt excesses, thereby earning their wrath and their determination, then by all means keep Mr. Lowenstein at the helm. Only someone like Doug Lowenstein would embrace Take-Two, a company that just had to pay the Security and Exchange Commission $8.75 million for fraudulent auditing practices, while scourging under-siege parents.

My fervent prayer as a Christian is not "Lord, give me more friends." It is rather "Lord, give me more enemies like Doug Lowenstein." He makes what I do so easy.

Your ESA leader in all of this is a man who has gone way, way out of his way to mock every single parent who has said to the Take-Two's of your industry "Enough already!" When well-intended citizens and legislators have tried to get your industry to adhere to the logic of the "M for mature" ratings label, Lowenstein has flown into a fury, claiming children have a constitutional right to consume pornography and violence. Nobody but Doug Lowenstein and the sociopaths at Take-Two believe that.

After today, when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks the truth and calls upon Americans to act on that truth regarding the violence and the scandal and the hurt coming from the extremists in your industry, pause and ask yourself: Whom can we thank for this day? I, as a lifelong Republican, am going to thank Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

You all, in your industry, ought to thank Doug Lowenstein. His extremism has painted a bullseye on your industry. Doug Lowenstein has the brush and Take-Two has provided the blood red paint.

If you want your industry destroyed, keep Mr. Lowenstein right where he is. If those of you who understand that any technology can be used for either good or for ill and that "responsibility" is something that adults are supposed to exercise in all walks of life, even in the entertainment industry, then get rid of this highly-paid thug and replace him with someone with sense.

Maybe Jack Valenti should be asked whom he would recommend who can act like a grown-up in this role. I'll bet he has a list without Lowenstein's name on it.

Senator Rodham Clinton, thankfully, is filling the void of real leadership in your industry created by Doug Lowenstein. It is about time.

If you want your fledgling industry destroyed for all of you, keep Doug Lowenstein right where he is. Events, like Columbine to the factor of ten, will take care of that. You won't be able to blame Senator Rodham Clinton. She is trying to prevent that calamity.

But if you want to be a partner with America's parents by together taking our children out of harm's way, then look for an ESA president who has the common decency to recognize the truth, speak it, and then act upon it.

It's your choice. You've made some pretty bad choices to date. Make a good one for a change. Dump Doug.

Regards, Jack Thompson

Re:And Jack Thompson's reply.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13063422)

what a big load of BS...

if we gamers dont start to vote for the right persons, soon we will only be playing nintendogs... (not that nintendogs seems bad anyway, but you get my point...)

Oh, come on (3, Interesting)

ALeavitt (636946) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063272)

Hasn't anybody considered the fact that downloading this patch requires the internet skills necessary to locate the patch, and then the computing skills necessary to apply it? If a kid can find the Hot Coffee mod on the net, he/she can find porn on the net. Hell, most people who couldn't find the Hot Coffee mod could find porn on the net. But censoring the intarweb was sooooo 90s, and it didn't succeed, so now they're going after video games.
As a complete non-sequitir, does anybody know of a country where the right to free speech actually exists, and the government doesn't tell the citizens what they can and can't choose to view?

Attack on 2 fronts (2, Insightful)

shoptroll (544006) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063273)

They're only doing this cause they want another nail to put GTA in the coffin with.

For all the over-the-top stuff in the game, it is a piece of smart satirical writing (listen to the radio stations and look at the adverts in the game if you don't know what I mean).

GTA has been able to evade every politician's attempts to nail it to the wall with the violence issue. Now they have another weapon to blast at it with.

Still, common sense says: it's M. Kids under 17 shouldn't have it, and those that do have it and have used the patch have probably seen worse on satellite/cable tv.

It has to be said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13063293)

Won't somebody please think of the children!?

Social Conservatives (2, Interesting)

boot1780 (807085) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063323)

First she's teaming up with Newt Gingrich and now this. The point is to curry favor with social conservatives before her inevitable run for president. Just the sound of her name makes the fundamentalists empty out their wallets and pocketbooks. Look for more of this to come.

zerg (1)

Lord Omlette (124579) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063375)

We have over 1000 dead in Iraq, we have thousands and thousands permanently crippled, al-Qaeda is doing infinitely better @ recruiting than our own Army... yet, the biggest problem she can tackle is video games?


From the Hot Coffee "Hacker" (1)

XXIstCenturyBoy (617054) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063384) [] :
"All the contents of this mod was already available on the original disks. Therefor the scriptcode, the models, the animations and the dialogs by the original voice-actors were all created by RockStar. The only thing I had to do to enable the mini-games was toggling a single bit in the main.scm file. (Of course it was not easy to find the correct bit). The Nude models that are used as a bonus in the Quick action version of the mod, were also already present on the original disk. But all this material is completely inaccesible in an unmodded version of the game. It can therefor not be considered a cheat, easter-egg or hidden feature. But is most probably just leftover material from a gameplay idea that didn't make the final release. I would really like to stress that this material is only accessible after willfully applying the hot coffee mod (or something similar) to the game."

So politician looking for the latest fad to go against should shut the hell up. This is leftover code. Whats next? Going after Microsoft because they reputedly have swear words in the comments of Windows's source?

I wouldnt bet on Rockstar. (2, Insightful)

AzraelKans (697974) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063397)

Let me see, this happens America Aka JesusLand, The country that voted "twice" for a guy with an IQ of 80 who sent their sons (not HIS sons though) to a bloody war in the middle of the fucking desert to the wrong country (according Michael Moore at least) and allowed terrorism to their doorsteps in the process, instead of voting for a guy who didnt opossed to gay marriage.

Hmm.. Id say Rockstar is pretty much screwed.

Rockstar just move to Canada and get over with it, next time you wont have to lock the sex game. ;)

p.s. Whats this fixation with politicians and GTA anyway? havent they noticed god of war has twice the blood, none of the choice to be bad or not and a completely unlocked sex game? or what about the sex scenes in fable? the guy game (which are real girls btw) or playboy mansion? those arent locked either.

Or if you want to go there, what about the nude patches for DOAVB or Tomb raider?

Generational warfare (4, Insightful)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063432)

Attention Boomers. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but despite the amount you might wish it to be the contrary, the 1950s are well and truly over. Deal with it. Yes, the world is a lot more secular, and a lot less racist, and yes, the gays and wiccans have ascended from the sewers and are now legally able to walk among the rest of us. On the other side of the sexual hypocrisy-related fence, a man (or woman) can now actually be caught and criminally charged for molesting their children. Horrifying concepts, I know...but if I've learned to acclimatise to it, so can you. Postmodernism and moral relativism have inherited the earth, and like it or not, there ain't no going back.

That of course is the crux of what this is about...people in Hillary's generational bracket having delusional recollections of the era of their own childhood, and wish to attempt to force said delusions upon the rest of the world. With the dawn of each new day I seem to read yet another report of an attempt at fascist control by some beurecratic 50+ year old suffering from the effects of advanced neurological decomposition. I've said it before, and I'll say it again...Hillary and the rest of her geriatric, sexually deprived ilk need to be in nursing homes...NOT in the halls of government.

Stupid American gvt. (1)

crystalattice (179900) | more than 9 years ago | (#13063439)

Regardless of whether it was in the game originally or not, why does it matter? Kids can get better sexual scenes and situations from TV. Look at Desperate Housewives or Sex in the City. Geez, even Family Guy is borderline. But I guess it's okay for kids to see an "adult situation" but if a nipple appears, the line has been crossed.

Apart from the fact that it's not in the base install version of the game, the fact that you have to d/l the patch and tweak the game means the person is completely conscious of his actions. It's not like it's popping in a porno movie. Apart from "cuz I can", why would someone want to see crummy, pixelated cyber-sex? Just look under dad's bed. :)

The better question the gvt. should be asking is why children have the game. I highly doubt it's because the game store sold it to the kid directly. I remember being reminded that Mortal Kombat was rated "M", so obviously the system can work. If parents can't be bothered to check the game's rating or monitor what their kids are doing, then maybe CPS should be called and take the kids away; I would say the parents are guilty of neglect.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?