Beta
×

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!

Games Industry Accused of 'Buying Political Clout'

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the because-nobody-else-does-it dept.

Games 101

A parent's group is lambasting the Electronic Software Association for announcing its intention to curry political favour in Washington DC. The games industry, for most of its life a much-maligned business sector, has just begun to work towards changing its image with US lawmakers. The Parents Television Council views this as attempting to 'buy influence in Congress', and views the ESA's plans harshly: "'The videogame industry continues to fight meaningful accountability for selling inappropriate material to children. The industry has been exposed repeatedly for its reprehensible behavior and now they are looking for ways to buy friends in the government,' said PTC President Tim Winter. 'Let me be clear of our intentions: Any public servant who cashes a check from the videogame industry will be exposed by the PTC as taking a stand against families, and his or her actions will be communicated to constituents in his or her congressional district.'" I wonder how they feel about lobbying by conservative 'pro-family' groups?

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

Welcom to the club (3, Insightful)

Boronx (228853) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144366)

I wonder how they feel about lobbying by conservative 'pro-family' groups?

Or every other business sector that has felt the weight of legislative attention.

Re:Welcome to the club (5, Insightful)

KillerCow (213458) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146230)

The Parents Television Council views this as attempting to 'buy influence in Congress'


As apposed to what they do...

Re:Welcom to the club (1)

armada (553343) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146932)

"A parent's group is lambasting the Electronic Software Association for announcing its intention to curry political favour in Washington DC" they are 100% correct. Their point?

Re:Welcom to the club (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22147614)

All conservative prune family groups are accused of buying political cunts anyway so, homosex?

Re:Welcom to the club (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22149678)

Quite right, let's ask the movie industry, music industry, corn growers, or just about anybody else who crams shit down the average American's throat on any given day, how they got the power to have a virtual monopoly.

Re:Welcom to the club (1)

sjlumme (719239) | more than 6 years ago | (#22165290)

Another one bites the dust! You can try to run a business just making things that people want and taking their money for it, but at some point somebody with power will smell your money and want a cut, if not of the money itself then at least of the influence that comes with it. David Boaz wrote a wonderful little editorial [cato.org] when Google set up a lobbying office, and he provocatively called it "Parasite Economy Latches onto New Host." A little shrill, maybe, but not really all that bad an analogy. And it is good to remember that the problem comes from two sides: companies lobby government for goodies, but at the same time government will do bad things to companies that fail to set up shop in DC (or Brussels, or wherever the nearest concentration of political power is.)

Oh bullshit. (5, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144404)

What, so it's only a bad thing when the gaming industry does it, and not when every other lobby in the universe does it?

Screw it. They tried to do it the right way, using reason, and compromise, and common sense, and it didn't work. So now, screw it, they're going to play the game, and it turns out that gaming is a fricking huge industry, and they can blow a ton of money on legislation that is favorable to them.

So now all the "Think of the Children" politicos are going to have to decide whether they want to keep pretending that they actually care, or whether they want money. Pretty much a no brainer.

Re:Oh bullshit. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22144540)

Thank god we can always rely on politicians being drawn towards money more than anything else.

Re:Oh bullshit. (3, Insightful)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145268)

As little as people may like it, the only way that the games industry can get a "positive" message in edgewise is through paid lobbyists. As it is, the only message that most politicians are likely to hear is "games are evil" because the groups that are pushing that message are very well organized.

Re:Oh bullshit. (2, Insightful)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22153116)

An honest politician is one who stays bought. Frankly, it's about time the games industry started using its money to bribe the Congresscritters. The Uptight Christians Brigade [cc.org] has been doing it for years, and getting in the way of everybody who just wants to kick back and enjoy the only life any of us are going to get.

Re:Oh bullshit. (1)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144898)

So now, screw it, they're going to play the game, and it turns out that gaming is a fricking huge industry, and they can blow a ton of money on legislation that is favorable to them.

Well, given that the PTV say's this on their website [parentstv.org] ...

World of Warcraft is incredibly fun to play [...] there is a fair amount of violence-some of it bloody, references to alcohol, and occasionally a subtle sexual innuendo.

They don't sound so bad. (ah, the power of the ellipsis. hehe =P )

In all seriousness, does the PTV support Disney movies? Because that pretty much sums up Aladdin, Lion King, Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, among others. I have to admit, their site is pretty interesting. They actual do a fair amount of Video Game coverage (from WoW, to Lego Star Wars, to Halo) with a family spin. But I completely object to this: "Halo 2, Educational value: None". ;)

Cheers,
Fozzy

Re:Oh bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22145016)

So, business as usual then.

And here I thought progress was at hand. Perhaps that's my optomistic side sprucing up again. Time to go read the news and put a damper on things.....

"Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss."

Duh. (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144424)

Everyone buys political clout, that's how the system works. Lobbying = legalized bribery. So I wonder, how much has the Parent's Television Council donated to various congresspeople?

Re:Duh. (2, Funny)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144646)

So I wonder, how much has the Parent's Television Council donated to various congresspeople?
The technical term for them is congresscritters. If you call them people, others might get the wrong idea and expect things like morals out of them.

Re:Duh. (3, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#22148352)

I dunno... "congresscritters" sounds sort of cute and fuzzy, and reminds me of this show [wikipedia.org] .

Just call them what they really are, a term that leaves no room for misunderstanding the nature of the evil that they spread across the earth. "Mostly lawyers."

Calling them what they are. (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22153276)

If we're going to call the scum infesting Congress (and other legislative bodies around the world) what they are, then "mostly lawyers" doesn't quite cover it. Let's use words like "racketeers", "gangsters", "criminals", "thugs", "extortionists", "looters", "thieves", "cowards", "robbers", and "assholes".

Mod me down for the following if you like: the only good politician is a dead politician.

Re:Calling them what they are. (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#22156244)

If we're going to call the scum infesting Congress (and other legislative bodies around the world) what they are, then "mostly lawyers" doesn't quite cover it. Let's use words like "racketeers", "gangsters", "criminals", "thugs", "extortionists", "looters", "thieves", "cowards", "robbers", and "assholes".

How are all those words not summed up in "lawyers?"

Re:Calling them what they are. (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22157546)

I've met a couple of decent lawyers. I've yet to see a politician who thinks that 'decency' is anything but a rhetorical sledgehammer to be brandished every time somebody gets pissy over how much sex or violence is shown on TV.

Re:Duh. (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 6 years ago | (#22234500)

Everyone buys political clout, that's how the system works. Lobbying = legalized bribery.
That doesn't make it right, though. It makes it wrong. Apparently up til now the gaming industry was one of the few groups ethical enough not to give in to this corruption, but now they're giving in. And politicians and parent groups are to blame for this corruption of our game industry!

They have every right to be upset (2, Insightful)

Cathoderoytube (1088737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144494)

The PTC has every right to be upset. An industry they're bullying has decided it's had enough and is fighting back. Once the gaming industry gets political PTC will have to find somebody else to pick on.

Re:They have every right to be upset (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22154198)

That about sums it up. Your post could very well be the entire article!

Arseholes, basically (5, Insightful)

Malevolent Tester (1201209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144542)

'The videogame industry continues to fight meaningful accountability for selling inappropriate material to children.

Can people stop using the word conservative to describe these groups? One of the cornerstones of conservatism is the belief in personal responsibility, and that includes taking responsibility as a parent, not sitting back and blaming the entertainment industry like some junkie approportioning the blame for his actions onto society.
If you can't be bothered to make the effort to learn what your children are doing, and enforce whatever rules you consider appropriate for your house, then you have no business complaining. A console/TV/computer is not a surrogate parent, and the games industry is not to blame if you've given your children a TV and Xbox360 in their room to shut them up.

Re:Arseholes, basically (1)

Goobermunch (771199) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144664)

Sadly, these organizations tend to ally themselves with the "conservative" party in the United States. They also tend to self-designate as "conservative."

And frankly, I've seen "conservatives" take the principle of "personal responsibility" to the point of blaming people rear-ended in car accidents for having made the decision to get out on the highway. Personal responsibility is a great way to convince people that the victims of your conduct don't deserve to be compensated. /rant

--AC

Re:Arseholes, basically (1)

beyonddeath (592751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144804)

1. when driving you should be monitoring what is going on behind you as well as in front. That is, when your stopped waiting for something you should have left yourself an escape route, whether it is a side walk, or yard, and watch all around your car. If you should happen to see a car coming behind you its trivial to then move into your safe area. Why this is so difficult for 99% of the population to understand is beyond me. It has saved me from being involved in several accidents, just like not tailgating the person in front of you does when they stop suddenly.

Legally it is partially your fault when you are rear ended for not having moved or even noticed the car was coming. I know of several people in ontario who have even received demerit points for failing to avoid, and been fined upwards of 1000$, while sitting oblivious at a red light.

2. These people are idiots, i totally agree.

Re:Arseholes, basically (1)

MeanderingMind (884641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145514)

I'll agree that you should be aware of what's going on all around your car as opposed to only what's in front, but I think you're trivializing the problem.

Firstly, it can be tough to make a judgement call on whether you are going to be hit or not. A lot of people, at least in my state, leave the bulk of the deceleration for a light towards the end. They effectively zoom up behind you and stop (God only knows why, it's not like the light is going to go anywhere, and even if it did the cars waiting at the light can only accelerate so quickly). Sometimes it will be clear as day, but sometimes it won't.

Secondly, there are situations where there isn't any "safe" exit. If you're behind one car in the middle lane of three lanes and a car is coming up behind you, where do you go? There are cars on your left, cars on your right, cars in front of you, and the big problem behind you. Ultimately, all you can do is thank your lucky stars you were smart enough to put some distance between you and the car in front of you so you aren't faulted for rear ending them in turn.

It's true that to some extent you're legally at fault for not avoiding, but I'd argue that in a very significant number of cases, if not most, it's unreasonable to expect the level of precognisance required to make the avoiding maneuver (should one be available).

Re:Arseholes, basically (1)

Kharny (239931) | more than 6 years ago | (#22150848)

i got rear ended twice at a red light. There isn't much choice at a red light.
Any action i can take involves me going forward before i can turn, this puts me into the trafic coming from the left side, which the n would hit me on the driver side.

Re:Arseholes, basically (1)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 6 years ago | (#22153172)

Legally it is partially your fault when you are rear ended for not having moved or even noticed the car was coming.
Uh, YMMV. Drastically.

Re:Arseholes, basically (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 6 years ago | (#22162882)

> Legally it is partially your fault when you are rear ended for
> not having moved or even noticed the car was coming. ...
No. Circumstances dictate who is at fault, but in the majority of real-world cases, the person who got rear ended is not at fault (even partially).

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071031185200AAPo49L [yahoo.com]
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=733166 [google.com]

I once barely avoided rear-ending a stationary car on a freeway. The two reasons I could were (a) I had started practising the '3 second gap' a couple of days prior and (b) my 20 year old car had new tyres put in recently. The sports car behind me (with much better brakes) also managed to stop in time. The truck behind the sports car didn't stop in time -- the sports car was a writeoff, and my car suffered major damage from the follow-on strike by the sports car. The truck's insurance paid for all the damage.

3 words: Safe stopping distance
2 more: Keep it!

> I know of several people in ontario ...fined upwards of 1000$, ...
> while sitting oblivious at a red light.

The CD-tax and now this... Canada sounds like a wierd place.

Re:Arseholes, basically (2, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145510)

I've seen "conservatives" take the principle of "personal responsibility" to the point of blaming people rear-ended in car accidents for having made the decision to get out on the highway.

No, what you've got there is an Objectivist. :-)

They are conservative. (1)

riseoftheindividual (1214958) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144842)

The founder of this group, L. Brent Bozell III, also founded Media Research Center and the Conservative Communication Center. He's also been on the board of the American Conservative Union. He's also William F. Buckley's nephew.

These people have clout among "conservative" politicians and describe themselves as "conservative". Personal responsibility is one of those ideas that lip service is paid to as it suits the political agenda at hand, and ignored when it doesn't.

Re:They are conservative. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22148030)

No they're really not, they're social liberals who hide behind their own misunderstanding of conservatism to push they're own psychotic agenda. Conervatives want as little government involvment in people's lives as possible, liberals generally want the opposite. Pushing for more government involvement = Liberalism != Conservatism. Also, all these 'family' lobby nut jobs can all watch pax, I'm going to continue enjoying my sex box (complete with mass effect) and other illicit games as I am an adult and don't give a rats ass about your kid's.

Re:They are conservative. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22149408)

Conervatives want as little government involvment in people's lives as possible, liberals generally want the opposite
Please. The only difference between liberals and conservatives is which particular bits of people's private lives they want the government to intrude upon.

Re:They are conservative. (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 6 years ago | (#22157724)

Sadly, that's wrong. Conservatives are people who don't want things to change, or if they must, want gradual changes over time. Liberals are people who want to use the government to guarantee personal freedoms and equality of opportunity. They are generally attempting to work for equality and personal liberty. You're thinking of Libertarians who are against any government interference (for good or bad) in the lives of the people, excepting, of course laws against fraud and theft. To a libertarian, stupid people who starve death have earned their fate, the government has no right to interefere in what is, by thier definition, justice.

Now, the people who are pushing for censorship belong to none of those groups. They are most likely statists, the opposite of libertarians. They believe that the government has not only the right, but the duty to interfere in the lives of it's people. Liberals will often fall somewhere between libertarian and statist because they believe in positive interferance and may fall differently depending on how much intervention each believes is necessary and/or desireable.

So while liberals believe in programs such as government sponsored health care, education, and welfare because properly implemented those programs increase the prosperity of the poorest members of a nation, and thus make the nation more egalitarian. It is not typical for them to believe in the censorship, with the notable exception of hate speech which is seen as a way of decreasing the liberty and prosperty of the targetted people.

Re:They are conservative. (1)

Talgrath (1061686) | more than 6 years ago | (#22161300)

That all said, however; I would point out that what most people call "Liberal" or "Conservative" in this country have been vastly changed to mean something completely different from the original definition. Conservativism now embodies a certain "go back to the good old days" mentality and is embodied by corporate funding from the oil industry (amongst others), fundamentalist christians and ranchers. Liberalism now embodies political correctness, "spiritualism" and funding from wealthy movie stars. The meaning of the words have changed in the public use, unfortunately to the point where they are little more than another way of saying Republican or Democrat (and what those parties embody); they are worthless words in the public use in my opinion.

Re:They are conservative. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22162700)

Also, Bozell's father wrote speeches for Sen. Joseph McCarthy(albeit it was after McCarthy had been throughly exposed as a fraud by Edward R. Murrow and the U.S. Army, then censured by the Senate).

BearDogg-X

Re:Arseholes, basically (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22145182)

There's even a fun twist to this:

Bob: I object to the way this game harms children by subjecting them to discriminating stereotypes
Adam: You asshole liberal!

John: I object to the way this game harms children by subjecting them to violence
Adam2: You asshole conservative!

It is not about whether cenorship should be done or not that determines your party affiliation in contemporary politics; it is what you want to censor!

Re:Arseholes, basically (1)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 6 years ago | (#22157102)

Actually, the liberals usually object to the violence in games, while the conservatives usually object to the sex. It's been like that for many decades regarding the various media, actually.

Rob

Re:Arseholes, basically (1)

jamie(really) (678877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145318)

I disagree completely. While conservatives are all for personal responsibility, they are also about curtailing personal freedoms to meet their moral standards. Conservatives are pro economic freedom, anti personal freedom. Democrats are pro personal freedom and anti economic freedom, and Libertarians are pro economic freedom and pro personal freedom.

So conservatives are all about personal responsibility, but only as it applies to their moral standards. That is you are free to take on the responsibility of marriage, but only between man and woman. You are free to be drunk responsibility, but only if you are over 21 - even though you are free to die responsibly for your country at 18. Hmm. Able to make a decision to die but unable to make a decision about a beer. And lets be clear a lot of them dont want anyone to be free to make a choice about alcohol at all.

This is not about whether or not someone can responsibly get a game for their kid, this is about the government making a choice for you about what you are allowed to do, think, drink, or watch.

Sure, once they've decided what you are allowed to watch, then they expect you to do so using your personal responsibility.

Re:Arseholes, basically (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22145472)

While conservatives are all for personal responsibility, they are also about curtailing personal freedoms to meet their moral standards.

No, some people who *call* themselves conservatives are also about curtailing personal freedoms to meet their moral standards. Those are actually *religious* *fanatics*.

I'm sorry, but if people are going to say "fundamentalist terrorists aren't really Muslims" then I'm going to say that the Evangelicals are not really conservatives. :-)

Re:Arseholes, basically (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22145678)

The meaning of the term 'conservative' has shifted.

It used to be that US Conservatives were all about personal and community responsibility, accountability and minimal government. I don't think I need to tell you that this is no longer the case. The concept of personal responsibility and common sense has been thrown out, in favor of the perception that people are basically stupid and immoral, and therefore need to be told what to do.

Note that this isn't all that different to the US Liberals, who were once about equality and personal freedom with community responsibility, but now appear to be falling over themselves to tell other people how to live their own lives.

Re:Arseholes, basically (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146080)

I notice that you are using "Democrat" as the opposite for "Conservative." I think part of the problem is people assuming/believing that Republicans are real Conservatives.

Re:Arseholes, basically (1)

jamie(really) (678877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189344)

I would agree with another poster that Conservatives used to mean "personal and community responsibility". Which is fine by me if you have a whole town in B.F.Nowhere that wants to create the ideal religious fanatic haven. However, what has happened since Reagan is that the Republicans and "influencial" fundamentalists (Falwell) have decided that "community responsbility" means "the whole USA is our community, therefor everyone needs to think like us, and we'll make it happen using the law and Fox."

I use Conservative as the opposite for Democrat because I *dont* believe that Republicans are the real Conservatives anymore. The Republicans used to be about economic freedom, but now, just like the Democrats, they are all about curtailing economic freedom and diverting huge amounts of our money to their buddies companies in oil, defense, health etc. Democrat or Republican its all about the benjamins. It used to be that the opposite of Republican was Democrat. Now the opposite of Republican is Libertarian.

Take the quiz [theadvocates.org] and see where you stand.

Re:Arseholes, basically (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22148532)

Libertarians are pro economic freedom and pro personal freedom

unless you're a woman
or poor
or brown-skinned
in essence, anyone who doesn't already benefit from personal and economic freedom.
In which case, you get what you deserve.

Re:Arseholes, basically (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22157920)

And just exactly how does one not benefit from personal and economic freedom if they are "a woman or poor or brown-skinned"?

Re:Arseholes, basically (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145814)

There is a spectrum of conservatives just like there is a spectrum of liberals, even if that spectrum on the conservative side has fewer differing interest groups and not as fragmented as the liberal side in the US. At the extreme ends, there is even some wrap-around. There are people that may be fiscal (conservative/liberal) they may go other way social issues.

Re:Arseholes, basically (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147276)

"One of the cornerstones of conservatism is the belief in personal responsibility, and that includes taking responsibility as a parent, not sitting back and blaming the entertainment industry like some junkie approportioning the blame for his actions onto society."

Yeah right, these are the same people who accuse others of being "enablers", i.e. the legalization of drugs for instance, and help for addicted users, etc. Just like every other human being conservatives just as hypocritical. "Personal responsibility" in the conservative contet of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", is nonsense in this day and age. Everyone depends on someone else for their survival, their toys, their lifestyle, etc. Many people have not updated their understanding of how the environment has changed and still think in terms of a by-gone era.

Re:Arseholes, basically (2, Informative)

Alsee (515537) | more than 6 years ago | (#22148248)

No true Scotsman.

-

'Political Clout' is more and more important now (0, Troll)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144566)

Q. What's better than a dead nigger in a holding cell?

A. Five Hundred dead niggers in a lime pit!

VOTE RON PAUL 2008

Re:'Political Clout' is more and more important no (1)

neomunk (913773) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146402)

Forget to tick that anonymous checkbox there, bigot?

Makes me proud to say that you were already on my foes list before you slipped up and let your hood show in public.

Re:'Political Clout' is more and more important no (1)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 6 years ago | (#22157192)

Better get that hook out of your mouth; the wound might get infected.

If you look at ringbarer's posting history, you'll notice that he didn't forget to do anything.

Rob

New Government Program for Protection of Children (5, Funny)

Free_Meson (706323) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144596)

The videogame industry continues to fight meaningful accountability for selling inappropriate material to children. The industry has been exposed repeatedly for its reprehensible behavior and now they are looking for ways to buy friends in the government,' said PTC President Tim Winter. 'Let me be clear of our intentions: Any public servant who cashes a check from the videogame industry will be exposed by the PTC as taking a stand against families, and his or her actions will be communicated to constituents in his or her congressional district.

I'd like to announce a new program to help screen inappropriate material from children. Tentatively titled the "Federal Universal Child Kinship Oversight and Family Force Act" or F.U.C.K.O.F.F. Act for short. This act empowers the states to appoint guardians over minors based on whatever criteria they find reasonable, though it is expected that minors will be assigned based on a matching of their genetic makeup to that of available guardians. These guardians will be allowed to control the media the minor is exposed to, including but not limited to internet, television, radio, video games, and print media. It is the hope of Congress that this formal delegation will clarify the role of the government in the care of minors.

Sincerely,

-Ron Paul

Re:New Government Program for Protection of Childr (1)

dlc3007 (570880) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144908)

Oh, how I wish I had mod points.....

Re:New Government Program for Protection of Childr (1)

CoJeff (1015665) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145816)

I'd like to announce a new program to help screen inappropriate material from children. Tentatively titled the "Federal Universal Child Kinship Oversight and Family Force Act" or F.U.C.K.O.F.F. Act for short. Hahahah thats the funniest thing I've read in a while. I totally support this new act! The PTC is just made cause now the ESA is fighting back using the same methods as they do. said PTC President Tim Winter. 'Let me be clear of our intentions: Any public servant who cashes a check from the videogame industry will be exposed by the PTC as taking a stand against families, and his or her actions will be communicated to constituents in his or her congressional district. I sure would like to know all the donations the PTC gave money to last year!

Re:New Government Program for Protection of Childr (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 6 years ago | (#22172938)

Maybe this was a joke, but with the idiocy legislation of the pro-family (no responsibility of the parents) groups I would like to sign on to this "bill". Where do I sign up!

Damn. (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144670)

I wish I had the money to buy political clout.

The Anti-Family Family Console (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22144690)

Any public servant who cashes a check from the videogame industry will be exposed by the PTC as taking a stand against families, and his or her actions will be communicated to constituents in his or her congressional district.

Yup, with games like Wii Sports, Wii Fit, DDR, Guitar Hero/Rock Band, etc. I can understand why the "pro-family" group is so against video games. I mean, since everyone from Grandparents to children are playing the Wii for physical exercise and the DS for Brain stimulation (I'm playing "My French Coach" for the DS to continue working on my French so I can better communicate with my fiancee's family), then we better threaten to stop such abhorred activities!

OH! Of course, they're just generalizing all video games as 'evil' because they find GTA or Counter-Strike too graphic.

What about the RIAA (2, Insightful)

KevMar (471257) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144692)

Where is the public out cry against the RIAA?

The RIAA pulls people in to court instead of generating income. They attack our children and grandparents and threaten to take away our childrens college assistance. Yet the public dont care. Us slashdotters understand it, but the people that should care don't.

Edited music (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22151820)

Where is the public out cry against the RIAA?
The major record labels have a habit of releasing edited versions without the language (and often without references to recreational drugs). Anyone can pick one of those up at Wal-Mart, where the price label tends to state that the music is edited. But in part because of the overhead per title imposed by the console makers, few video game publishers will bring out both an "edited" T and a "less edited" M rated version of the same title.

Re:Edited music (1)

Ravenscall (12240) | more than 6 years ago | (#22158334)

You obviously missed the 80s

"Market Forces" (3, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144760)

And why not? That clout is for sale!

Of course they are (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144820)

Because morons like the PTC are forcing them to. The tech industry as a whole was generally pretty happy to keep out of politics. However since it is being forced on them they are now going to play the game like everyone else.

Logical Fallacy (5, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#22144846)

I notice how everyone is suddenly becoming defensive and apologetic. "Everyone else does it too" is not an excuse. You already know this -- it's almost cliche now -- and yet we still find people who will excuse the behavior of any corporation with "Meh. It's a corporation. That's what corporations do."

But that's not why I'm posting. Actually, I find a sense of gratification -- one could even call it glee -- that for once, I'm on the side of the corporations, who are lobbying for something I want, rather than being the "little guy" screaming at the top of his lungs, wishing desperately that he was relevant.

And that's not why I'm posting, either. I am posting because of this outright fallacy quoted in the summary:

Let me be clear of our intentions: Any public servant who cashes a check from the videogame industry will be exposed by the PTC as taking a stand against families, and his or her actions will be communicated to constituents in his or her congressional district.

Oh, I get it. You're with us, or you're with the terrorists.

Look, am I the only one who sees more possibilities here? If I was trying to get ahead politically, why wouldn't I cash a check from anyone? It's not as if the money itself is tainted. The MPAA could pay me all they want, and I would still legislate against them, not for them. They can threaten to pull funding -- fine, I'll use the last of their own money to buy some ads, exposing how they essentially tried to bribe/blackmail me into writing legislation for them. A message of "I'm doing the right thing, even if it costs me money" should serve to get me re-elected, right?

It would be much more relevant to ask what that check was for, and to actually look at what that particular public servant does. People who cash checks from the MPAA do tend to write stuff like the DMCA. Are people cashing checks from the videogame industry any more or less likely to write censorship legislation?

Re:Logical Fallacy (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145706)

Actually, I find a sense of gratification -- one could even call it glee -- that for once, I'm on the side of the corporations, who are lobbying for something I want,

If you think for a second the ESA is any better than the RIAA or the MPAA you're a fool.

Re:Logical Fallacy (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#22150640)

I don't. It's what they would tend to lobby for.

In some ways, they'd be no better than the MPAA. In other ways, well, I like violence in my videogames!

Re:Logical Fallacy (1)

Froobly (206960) | more than 6 years ago | (#22151222)

If you think for a second the ESA is any better than the RIAA or the MPAA you're a fool.

It's a fair comparison. They're both well-funded, largely amoral organizations that have either wronged us in the past, or intend to wrong us in the future. However, bad as the RIAA is now, I don't want to think what would've come if they hadn't been fighting against the PMRC in the '80s.

Re:Logical Fallacy (1)

miller701 (525024) | more than 6 years ago | (#22152440)

So wait, in hindsight, we like Tipper and Co. now because the were a distraction to the RIAA?

What?

Re:Logical Fallacy (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22158488)

The MPAA could pay me all they want, and I would still legislate against them, not for them.
Are you sure? Money talks, you know. If I gave you 2 billion dollars to support legislation for me, would you do it? Or would you listen to "the voters," who got you the job but don't pay you at all (or at least aren't contributing anymore now that you are in office)? Add the lack of knowledge of the consequences of said legislation that almost all politicians suffer from at least at some point in their careers, if not all the time, and it's pretty easy to see why bought-and-paid-for legislation is so common.

They can threaten to pull funding -- fine, I'll use the last of their own money to buy some ads, exposing how they essentially tried to bribe/blackmail me into writing legislation for them. A message of "I'm doing the right thing, even if it costs me money" should serve to get me re-elected, right?
Wrong. The voters won't remember you for taking a stand against lobbyists but for accepting that money in the first place, even if you never acted on it. The relationship between bribes and biased legislation is just too great in their minds.

Think about it: would you re-elect someone who publicly announced that he or she would no longer act upon bribes, or would you suspect that this is just a ploy to get more votes with good-old-fashioned political deception?

Re:Logical Fallacy (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#22162564)

If I gave you 2 billion dollars to support legislation for me, would you do it?

Depends on the legislation.

Also, if you gave me 2 billion dollars to do something I was going to do anyway, I'd take it. Or if you gave me 2 billion dollars in the hopes that I'd do something for you, but without getting me to actually agree to it, that's your fault. And that's what you get for trying to bribe me.

Or would you listen to "the voters,"

I'd listen, yes. Just as I'd listen to you.

And then I'd vote for what I thought was the right thing to vote for. As in, I'd follow my conscience. You know, basic ethics.

If the voters don't like it, they don't vote for me, and that's fine. But if they voted me in, they must have agreed with me on something.

Add the lack of knowledge of the consequences of said legislation that almost all politicians suffer from at least at some point in their careers, if not all the time,

Which is precisely why I'd listen to everyone I can. In particular, I'd ask the experts -- on both sides of the debate.

The voters won't remember you for taking a stand against lobbyists but for accepting that money in the first place, even if you never acted on it. The relationship between bribes and biased legislation is just too great in their minds.

Honestly, you don't think advertising is particularly great in their minds?

Think about it: would you re-elect someone who publicly announced that he or she would no longer act upon bribes, or would you suspect that this is just a ploy to get more votes with good-old-fashioned political deception?

You're assuming that it was, originally, a bribe.

Yes, I'd accept the money. But I absolutely would not promise anything.

pro family? (2, Insightful)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145186)

Is Pro family another word for 'don't do anything that would make baby jesus cry' or something?
Good grief. I have a family, I'm reasonably sure I'm pro it, and I like games as they are. If somethings too violent I just don't buy it, end of problem. Do I need someone esle to tell me? Nope, I have a brain.

Remember when Hollywood started to think that any decent film had to have sex scenes in it? I mean the eighties and early nineties. They weren't legislated into stopping it, although there were the same pressure groups doing the rounds. It was a bums on seats problem. People weren't interested, so they didn't pay for the film, so they dropped the sex thing. There's only been one scene with sex scenes in it that I've enjoyed in recent years, and that's 'Free Enterprise'. There wasn't exactly much in that either. Ok Clerks 2 as well, but that was a donkey....um, bad example...

If people don't buy enough of the violent games, they'll stop making them, its simple business economics. If they keep on buying them, there's obviously a market, and it will be supplied, no matter what die hard 'pro family' bods say.

Re:pro family? (1)

Tailsfan (1200615) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145336)

ANd I don't really care about that. I don't like viopent games anyway.

"Family" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22146082)

"Family" is one of the codewords, yes. The flag that it raises for me, at least, is usually "conservative Christian," although I'll admit that's not always the case. My own anecdotal experience has been that every "family" bookstore, for instance, is basically using a politically friendly (i.e. secular) term for "Jesus." I make the mental substituation that in these contexts "family" is referring to the relationship between God and Jesus.

There are other codewords, too.
"Responsibility" usually means "blame-shifting."
"Value" anywhere near "consumer" usually means "screwing the customer."
"Morals" usually means "religious book learnings."
"Sportsman" usually means "gun enthusiast/nut."

Re:pro family? (1)

Bones3D_mac (324952) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146330)

There's only been one scene with sex scenes in it that I've enjoyed in recent years, and that's 'Free Enterprise'.

Great flick, btw... They even got William Shatner to play as imaginary version of himself:

Imaginary William Shatner: What'd he say?
Young Robert: You really don't want to know.
Imaginary William Shatner: I really do want to know!
Young Robert: He said that Han Solo was cooler than Captain Kirk.
Imaginary William Shatner: Kick the little fucker's ass!

That bit of dialogue alone almost makes it worth the price of entry, but the rest of it's pretty good too.

- Free Enterprise IMDb page [imdb.com]

Re:pro family? (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 6 years ago | (#22149032)

Watch "this film is not yet rated" to see just what Hollywood does to films with sex in them (including independent films where the filmmaker cares more about the art than about the money)

The only reason congress hasn't intervened to try and stamp out the "bad" stuff in films is because the MPAA and their secret ratings board are doing it for them

Re:pro family? (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#22153190)

Ok Clerks 2 as well, but that was a donkey....um, bad example.

Chicks with dicks that put mine to shame.
Wait, wrong Clerks.

I can't take it anymore (3, Interesting)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145376)

Is there a real life Galt's Gultch out there? Is there some place where all the self reliant and independent people went? Where all the people who take responsibility for themselves went to live a better life? A place where someone suggesting the formation of a group called the Parents Television Council would be looked at like a mentally ill person?

Can I come? I gots mad tech skillz. Please? I'll work really hard. Anything to GET ME THE FUCK OUT OF THIS FUCKING CESSPOOL OF NITWITS THE REST OF THE WORLD HAS BECOME!

Re:I can't take it anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22151000)

If you manage to book a ticket, reserve some seats... there's a few of us who want to go too...

Re:I can't take it anymore (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 6 years ago | (#22154680)

"A place where someone suggesting the formation of a group called the Parents Television Council would be looked at like a mentally ill person?"

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a group called the "Parents Television Council." However in a sane world such a council would focus on encouraging the development of "clean" "harmless" (and more importantly, simple and fun) programming for children and working with amenable companies on the production of the same. They would not be running around telling the rest of us what kind of programming adults should be watching and what kind of content marketed towards adults should be produced.

Re:I can't take it anymore (1)

Ravenscall (12240) | more than 6 years ago | (#22158444)

If you were truly a personally responsible person, you would have founded it already instead of waiting for somebody else to.

Re:I can't take it anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22161826)

yeah, you're looking for Australia. It's that funny big island that's too big to be an island so they call it a country. Go visit, you might want to stay.

Wait a second here... (1)

D'Arque Bishop (84624) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145384)

... isn't the Parents Television Council [wikipedia.org] the same group that sends in the vast majority of "indecency" complaints to the FCC, far more than any other group combined?

The hypocrisy of them lambasting the gaming industry for playing political "dirty tricks" is truly disgusting, indeed.

Ya know what pisses me off the most? (2, Insightful)

7Prime (871679) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145588)

The fact that PTC isn't actually what they say they are. They're not a "child friendly" group trying to work with the game industry to get concensus on gaming... they're an anti-video game lobby group who thinks that video games are evil and are out to destroy the industry. They remind me of religious pro-abstinance groups who masquerade as birth-control education.

I'm personally fairly opposed to video game violence, as I am with TV and cinema... I don't think it's healthy for our culture in general (regardless of age, actually). But I'm also in favor of consensus building, and different interests working together toward the common good. The PTC has shown that they are not trying to build a better game industry, they are trying to tear it apart completely.

Basically, this gesture says "We can lobby, but they can't, because they're inherently evil". At that point, no reasoning or compromise can be made, we're now in the realm of idiology and theology. Basically, PTC has just declared financial holy war on the game industry.

I consider myself a pacifist... but in this case, let the war begin.

It's totally unfair (4, Funny)

Aggrav8d (683620) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145724)

Gaming experts gaming the system? They have way too much experience, they'll run circles around their competitors! At the very least lobbyists should have to get past some kind of jumping puzzle to reach the senate, only to be told their congressman is in another office.

Re:It's totally unfair (1)

Crash Culligan (227354) | more than 6 years ago | (#22155116)

Aggrav8d: Gaming experts gaming the system? They have way too much experience, they'll run circles around their competitors!

I know. So I'm expecting a bloodbath. (Hey, pass the popcorn, would you? Oh, a large bucket please.)

Aggrav8d: At the very least lobbyists should have to get past some kind of jumping puzzle to reach the senate, only to be told their congressman is in another office.

Why not? I mean, that's almost how it works for everyone else now anyway. There's no jumping puzzle per se, but that last clause is spot on.

Um...? (1)

darkhitman (939662) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146066)

Can anyone here explain how forcing parents to do more parenting is "anti-family"? I can't see it, myself.

My "Teen" RPG Christamas... (1)

kabocox (199019) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146194)

I'm going to let you know how my "teen" RPG christmas went. Shadow Hearts 2 & 3, XenoSaga 1-3, Tales of the Abyss, and Disagea 1 & 2. So far I've made it mostly through Disagea 1, beat Tales of the Abyss, beat XenoSaga 1 and at the final dungeon of XenoSaga 2. I got feed up with XS2's annoyingly difficult enemies that I couldn't just level up and get past so I started Shadow Hearts 2 last night.

I have nearly the entire FF Series and it's rated Teen and I found really nothing in it to object to... I have two kids one 8 years old the other 10. Disagea was too boring for them to watch Daddy play it. Tales of the Abyss's main character jerk's favorite expression throughout the game was "What the hell?" Hell used in that manner in our household is considered cussing. Cussing isn't allowed for us or our kids. Other than Daddy reminding the kids every 5 minutes that's not language that we use in this house hold there wasn't really anything I found objectionable for the kids to watch. Well, o.k. Daddy cheering when Ion finally dies rather than being kidnapped for the nth time was "bad" thing that they didn't see, but other than that I couldn't find fault other other than minor language.

Now, we start XenoSaga we bribed the rates board to get a Teen rating. If you took all the cutscenes in this game and had the movie rates people view them, it would be an obvious R rated movie. This RPG should have been M for adult themed material and extreme blood and gore. It took a bit before my wife and I encountered why this game should have had an M rather than T rating. Alien's invade the main character's star ship and slaughter nearly every one that you had spent the last hour running around and meeting. We aren't just talking about lifeless bodies on the floor. We are talking about splattered bodies on the floors and walls with cutscenes of the random folks getting their head smashed in by aliens. The "adult themed content" wasn't sex. In that society, they are basically using slightly modified clones as slave labor and that's legal and o.k. They bring back the dead as cyborgs and the cyborgs are owned by who ever brings them back. It's a great RPG and I recommend playing it if you can rent it and spare oh 40-45 hours most of which are watching great cutscenes. Actually, I guess T could be o.k. if I've not been in the habit of letting my 8-10 year olds play nearly every T rated game that I have. If they were 13-15 I would have no problems with them viewing this content and asking questions about the society in question.

XS2 had excessive blood splash up/out of every organic enemy. Heck, I think that I saw it splash out of the robots as well. I was actually more annoyed by that rather than finding it something to object to. I just tuned it out. I wished that I could actually turn it off so the battles could end 2-3 seconds sooner. Load times for normal random encounter type battles sucked in that game.

Now I just started Shadow Hearts 2 last night. After the intro clip of a group of soldiers inside of a church all being owned in a very scary manner. It was deemed that kids shouldn't watch this one either. There are some very gay/queer shop keepers, the enemy priest looks/walks like it, and the big guy caring the lumber kinda looks like it as well. Other than that completely coming out of left field, so far it's not been too bad other than the cutscenes and the actual plot. So if you have gay/homosexual issues, Shadow Hearts may not be family viewing in your household. I could actually have put up with it, but why oh why did they have to zoom in on the guys shaking butt and place his dialog over it when you are first introduced to them? It's almost as bad as the zooming in on Jessica's boobs in DQ8.

Re:My "Teen" RPG Christamas... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22149396)

Shadow Hearts 2?

Wait until you get to 'the man festival.'

How that didn't create the same sort of scandal as Hot Coffee I'll never know.

PTC=PMRC? (1)

peektwice (726616) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147258)

Is the PTC just another abomination of Tipper Gore's PMRC?
I'm getting real fucking tired of politicians, and others, hiding behind "the children".

Re:PTC=PMRC? (1)

bri2000 (931484) | more than 6 years ago | (#22151844)

Has coverage of "the children" become as schizophrenic in the US as it is in the UK these days? Over here the press seems to alternate between stories about how the paedaphiles are coming for YOUR children and they're coming NOW (in fact, they're proably watching your child's school as you read this) and demanding that children be protected from the possibility of gaining the merest hint of the existence of sex, drugs or other "adult" topics lest it destroy their delicate little minds, on the one hand, and stories about how the streets are full of feral children who'll stab you for your mobile phone and iPod the second you leave the house, accompanied by demands for longer prison sentences for children and for them to be served in adult prisons (presumably to give the incarcerated paedaphiles something to keep them occupied) on the other.

Re:PTC=PMRC? (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22158806)

Yep. That describes the situation in the US perfectly.

Re:PTC=PMRC? (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22158742)

I'm guessing these are either some very tall children or some very short politicians.

Video games and TV are seperate issues (1)

liegeofmelkor (978577) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147574)

It must be naive of me to thing that the Parents TELEVISON Council would restrain itself to issues concerning TELEVISION and leave other media alone. I suppose its pointless to try to dissuade the PTC from pestering video game lobbies by patiently explaining to them that television has nothing to do with video games. Its entirely possible to play a video game on a device that's not capable of receiving a television feed and can't be used to play movies (i.e. my black-and-white Game Boy still works fine). Yes, some video game media can be viewed on television screens, but they're really targeting the wrong industry here. Maybe with greater education and advocacy, we can persuade these Luddites that their anger only stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue being discussed (the same could be said for stem cell research from human embryos).

Good for us now, maybe bad for us later (1)

Fulminata (999320) | more than 6 years ago | (#22148022)

A video game industry PAC is good for us now, and overdue for the industry. It means that they will have more clout in fighting censorship efforts. In the future it could be a different story.

After all, I remember rooting for the recording industry and their PACs back when Tipper Gore was leading the effort to censor music, but later those same organizations lobbied to get the DMCA passed.

Not everything that is good for the game industry is good for the gamer.

Only one way to deal with this.. (2, Funny)

knavel (1155875) | more than 6 years ago | (#22148146)

There's only one way to deal with nutjobs that are so far removed from reality...Respond with an equally removed from reality response. And how pray tell do we, the tech community, do such a thing? By using technology to our advantage. I'm sure someone else remembers Scott Pakin's famous complaint letter generator:

http://www.pakin.org/complaint

And a quick search over the PTC's site reveals the email for "Letters to the Editor":

editor@parentstv.org

Now go forth, my tech brethren, and fight crazy with crazy!

Works like a charm ! (1)

Romwell (873455) | more than 6 years ago | (#22149534)

Yummy ! The complaint generator is a cute technological marvel. Here is what I just sent them: Here is my complaint about PTC with regards to your recent attacks against gaming industry.

May I be cynical for a bit? I hope you don't mind, but with Parents Television Council's latest barrage of snippy politics, I can't resist the urge to make a few cynical comments. It is worth noting at the outset that contrary to my personal preferences, I'm thinking about what's best for all of us. My conclusion is that what's best for all of us is for me to look into the future and consider what will happen if we let Parents Television Council make today's oppressiveness look like grade-school work compared to what it has planned for the future. Even though Parents Television Council presents a public face that avoids overt nonrepresentationalism, it sees the world as somewhat anarchic, a game of catch-as-catch-can in which the sneakiest clodpolls nab the biggest prizes. Parents Television Council promises that if we give it and its bedfellows additional powers, it'll guard us from the most quixotic apostates I've ever seen. My question, however is, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? -- Who will guard the guards?

I would be grateful if Parents Television Council would take a little time from its rigorous schedule to do what needs to be done. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens. Sometimes it seems dour underachievers are like a farmer who, in the spring, would work the ground, plant seeds, fertilize, and cultivate the ground for a period of time. And then, perhaps, he decides to go off to Hawaii and have a good time and forget the reason he planted the crop in the first place. Well, a farmer wouldn't do that. But Parents Television Council would lay all of society open to the predations of organized criminality if it got the chance. Parents Television Council's strictures owe much to the crusades of ethically bankrupt, mean-spirited delinquents. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world.

I find that I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that some people just don't realize that on the issue of resistentialism, Parents Television Council is wrong again. Sure, I consider it extremely insulting of it to encourage every sort of indiscipline and degeneracy in the name of freedom. But Parents Television Council approximates a picayunish gauleiter as far as practical action is concerned but differs in psychology, ideology and motivation. But the problems with Parents Television Council's writings don't end there. Parents Television Council must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Parents Television Council accuses me of admitting that it does the things it does "for the children". What I actually said is that the result of Parents Television Council's proposals will not be an increase in achievement but rather a decrease in expectations. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that Parents Television Council's cohorts remain largely silent when asked about the correlative connecting Parents Television Council to escapism. The rare times they do deign to comment they invariably skew the issue to prevent people from realizing that Parents Television Council commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. It then ensures that these people stay in those positions because that makes it easy for Parents Television Council to challenge all I stand for. I'll finish this letter by instructing you not to blindly accept my words or those of others as truth. Investigate, discriminate, and question everything not proven. Only by doing so can you determine for yourself that our real enemy is the superstitious, antihumanist system that made Parents Television Council as malignant as it is.

Dear Tim Winter (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 6 years ago | (#22149832)

You are a moron and I don't like you. The video game industry has every right to lobby just as any other group. Video games are no different than movies, television, or any other type of entertainment. Some games are meant for kids, some games are meant for adults. If you or the people you represent are incapable of parenting, please refrain from having children. I am sick and tired of people like you telling me that there is something wrong with my hobby. The real problem is you forcing your morales on other people. It isn't ok when religious extremists do it in the Middle East, it isn't ok when you do it in our country. This is a nation formed of many different races and religions. It is also formed of adults and children. Children, that I don't have, should not prevent me from enjoying a game intended for my age group. I'm only 30, but keep your kids off my lawn too.

Angry activist "parents" (1)

secretwhistle (1116881) | more than 6 years ago | (#22149914)

Any public servant who cashes a check from the videogame industry will be exposed by the PTC as taking a stand against families...

I think what must irritate them the most is that gaming industry has decided to fight them on their own turf. But at what point did supporting video games mean harming families? It's not as if the two are mutually exclusive. Pro-divorce, anti-family. Pro-kidnapping, anti-family. Pro-child abuse, anti-family. Those correlations make sense.

I'm a married man with a family and videogames. Call Social Services. I'm obviously going to have to choose one or the other and god knows, as a gamer, I'll never make the right decision.

These people won't be happy until they've legislated a national bedtime.

Re:Angry activist "parents" (1)

Synic (14430) | more than 6 years ago | (#22150388)

Yes, this is awfully familiar. I mean, didn't we have this whole ridiculous crapfest with the RIAA and the "Explicit Lyrics" labels on CDs at music stores years ago? And it effectively did little other than to further glamorize those CDs for "rebellious" youth?

Hmm... (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22159350)

I'm not sure which acronym I despise more: the PTC with their cries of "We must tell every parent and politician in America how to raise children or our children will surely grow up to be heathen criminals.", or the ESA with their cries of "We must ignore and/or sabotage any and all technology standards or our customers will surely rob us blind."

The video game bills in Congress (1)

donnydonny (1226354) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170752)

Just thought I'd pass along these links to more info about some of the pending video game legislation in Congress right now::

H.R.1531 - Video Game Decency Act of 2007 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1531/show [opencongress.org]
S.568 - Truth in Video Game Rating Act http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s568/show [opencongress.org]
H.R.2958 Children Protection from Video Game Violence and Sexual Content Act http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h2958/show [opencongress.org]

And you grab an rss feed to monitor congressional activity related to video game legislation here::

http://www.opencongress.org/issue/show/5675_video_games [opencongress.org]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?