Page 1 of 1
Clinton calls on CDC to classify video games as a disease
Posted: 2006-03-12 03:42am
by Dominus Atheos
Doesn't the stupid bitch realize that she's alienating the entire 18-30 voting bloc?
Clinton, Lieberman propose CDC investigate games
Democratic Senators from New York and Connecticut are asking the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to investigate "impact of electronic media use."
A handful of US senators who are longtime foes of the video game industry took a first step Wednesday toward a future government crackdown.
Democrats Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Hillary Clinton of New York, and Dick Durbin of Illinois persuaded a Senate committee to approve a sweeping study of the "impact of electronic media use" to be organized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC.
Even though the legislation--called the Children and Media Research Advancement Act--does not include restrictions, it appears to be intended as a way to justify them. That's because a string of court decisions have been striking down antigaming laws because of a lack of hard evidence that minors are harmed by violence in video games.
This "is a big step toward helping parents get the information they need about the effect of media on their children," Lieberman said after the vote by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Lieberman's two Republican cosponsors of the bill are senators Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Sam Brownback of Kansas.
The original version of the bill earmarked $90 million for the study, but Lieberman press secretary Rob Sawicki said that the committee had approved the measure without any dollar figure and that such a figure would be added later during the appropriations process.
Lieberman boasts on his Web site that he "held the first hearings on the threat posed to children by video game violence" and strong-armed the industry into developing a ratings system under threat of government action. He and Clinton introduced legislation late last year that would ban the sale or rental of any "mature" or "ratings pending" video game to a minor, and Lieberman has singled out Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto for particular criticism.
If the CDC eventually produces a study claiming a link between violent video games and harm to minors, the future of state and federal laws targeting such games could be radically different. So far, those laws have been ruled unconstitutional because judges have not found that kind of link to exist.
"Down the road when--if there is some sort of finding that there is harm in this--then we're going to see calls to regulate speech because of the potential harm," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union. "That's where there's going to be a problem."
Missouri's St. Louis County had enacted a law prohibiting anyone from selling, renting or making available "graphically violent" video games to minors without a parent's or guardian's consent. But the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "before the county may constitutionally restrict the speech at issue here, the county must come forward with empirical support for its belief that 'violent' video games cause psychological harm to minors."
In 2004, a federal district judge in Washington state tossed out a law penalizing the distribution of games to minors in which harm may come to a "public law enforcement officer." The "state of the research" does not justify the ban, US District Judge Robert Lasnik ruled.
Lieberman's bill, called CAMRA, would provide funding to investigate the cognitive, physical, and sociobehavioral impact of electronic media on child and adolescent development--everything from physical coordination, diet, and sleeping habits to attention span, peer relationships, and aggression levels. Television, motion pictures, DVDs, interactive video games, the Internet, and cell phones would all be fair game.
But not all reception has been positive. The advocacy group Citizens Against Government Waste deemed Lieberman its "porker of the month" shortly after the measure was first introduced, criticizing him for spending taxpayer money on "redundant studies" already undertaken by groups like the Kaiser Family Foundation and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
It was not immediately clear how much the original bill was amended beyond the funding component or when it would receive a full Senate vote. A similar bill introduced by Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, has not yet been considered by the US House of Representatives.
I wonder if this investigation will be handled the same way as the first government investigation into pornography, or the second.
Posted: 2006-03-12 03:48am
by Adrian Laguna
Aside from the useless waste of money, I don't see how this can be a particularly bad thing. Unless the CDC decides to engage in unethical practices. If the bill gets passed, I seriously doubt the CDC will find videogames to be any more harmful than television.
Posted: 2006-03-12 09:24am
by Admiral Valdemar
I'd say politics is a disease, given the harm it does to civilisation and the rest of the natural world. It's a memetic virus that rivals religion in magnitude of fucking over the species. Games? I'd seriously like to hear how many people have died since the '70s because of electronic gaming. I'm betting it's less than, say, the Crusades or any political ideology based war.
Posted: 2006-03-12 10:22am
by felineki
It's true, I think I've come down with this disease. I mean, look at my symptoms... I have a wild mustache, dress in overalls 24/7, and have an insatiable urge to jump on turtles... dear God, what have I become?!
Re: Clinton calls on CDC to classify video games as a diseas
Posted: 2006-03-12 10:46am
by Wicked Pilot
Posted: 2006-03-12 11:22am
by RedImperator
Clinton is the ultimate nanny state politician. She's the opposite side of the George W. coin in a lot of respects. Georgie the Wonder Chimp doesn't want you to have video games because they have boobies, and Senator Ironbox doesn't want you to have them because they have guns. Both think they know better than you how to conduct your own affairs, and both are willing to use the power of the state to compel you to do what they believe is morally right if the bully pulpit doesn't work.
The Democrats will deserve everything that happens to them if they nominate her in '08.
Posted: 2006-03-12 01:24pm
by Duckie
Perhaps Hillary had a bad experience with the Civilization series?
Clinton: "Come to bed, honey."
Hillary: "No! One... More... Turn!"
And thus came the Monica Lewinski scandal.
Posted: 2006-03-12 02:04pm
by Faqa
Judging by the way things seem to be going in the Stars and Stripes, I'd say you'd be better off searching for an epidemic of dumbfuckitis.
Re: Clinton calls on CDC to classify video games as a diseas
Posted: 2006-03-12 04:04pm
by Dominus Atheos
Wicked Pilot wrote:Dominus Atheos wrote:Doesn't the stupid bitch realize that she's alienating the entire 18-30 voting bloc?
Yeah, all 53 of them.
Last election, over 20 million people in that age group voted.
Re: Clinton calls on CDC to classify video games as a diseas
Posted: 2006-03-12 04:06pm
by Sriad
Wicked Pilot wrote:
Yeah, all 53 of them.
If you mean the 53 regular posters HERE who are also regular USA voters, yes.
But no, that was just a stupid random trolly statement.
Re: Clinton calls on CDC to classify video games as a diseas
Posted: 2006-03-12 04:20pm
by Wicked Pilot
Sriad wrote:If you mean the 53 regular posters HERE who are also regular USA voters, yes.
But no, that was just a stupid random trolly statement.
Are you aware of the voting stastics for young adults? It's pathetic, and when you take away all the voters who don't play video games (such as women), and that number drops even more. The government could tomorrow outright ban violent video games and no one would come close to losing their office over it.
Posted: 2006-03-12 04:38pm
by Lost Soal
The original version of the bill earmarked $90 million for the study, but Lieberman press secretary Rob Sawicki said that the committee had approved the measure without any dollar figure and that such a figure would be added later during the appropriations process.
Is it just me, or does that mean spend as much as you need to find the weakest possible thread supporting the claim and we'll get you the money.
As for games being psychologically disturbing, the news is more disturbing than any game or movie I've ever seen.
Oh wait, is that the point?
Now that we've proved fiction can psychologically damage a child, we need to censor news which we don't like because obviously the real thing would do far more damage to them
"Won't somebody PLEASE,
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"
Posted: 2006-03-12 05:25pm
by Admiral Valdemar
The US is happy to give $90M to a study out to prove videogames are a disease, yet, there are still homeless people in NO, among other areas. Think about that.
Posted: 2006-03-12 07:37pm
by Vendetta
Admiral Valdemar wrote:The US is happy to give $90M to a study out to prove videogames are a disease, yet, there are still homeless people in NO, among other areas. Think about that.
What are you? Some kind of commie?
Re: Clinton calls on CDC to classify video games as a diseas
Posted: 2006-03-12 07:44pm
by TheBlackCat
Dominus Atheos wrote:Doesn't the stupid bitch realize that she's alienating the entire 18-30 voting bloc?
How do you figure that? These laws apply to minors, people under 18. At most 18 year-olds may get carded at retailers, but I have never heard of a law that would restrict the sales of games to non-minors. The only people these laws affect are people under 18, who can't vote anyway.
I personally don't see a problem with this as long as they work within the existing system. The rating system is already supposed to restrict who can buy what without a parent present. Certainly laws that simply say "you can't sell violent games to minors" are absurd since they don't define violence. It is far too broad and poorly defined, even racing and sports games could fall under a literal interpretation of such a law (which is why such laws are routinely overturned by courts). But a law that says "you can't sell M games to people under 17" is perfectly reasonable. The whole point of an M game is that people under 17 shouldn't be buying it in the first place. More strongly enforcing the existing ratings given by the ESRB seems like a good idea to me.
However, you don't see this very often. Most of the laws I have seen have been of the first type. The politicians who pass such laws know they will be overturned by courts, but they pass them anyway for political reasons. They seem intent on fighting the gaming industry tooth and nail instead of trying to work with it for the benefit of everyone. This is another example of potentially beneficial legislation being subverted and twisted into something completely ludicrous for political ends.
Not that the ESRB and ESA are wholly blameless, either. They have been pretty stubborn. Deficiencies in the ESRB system have turned up. Although I am not aware of any serious issues with it yet, the raters simply watching a video supplied by the developer of what the developer thinks are the worst scenes is a recipe for disaster. I think having the ESRB raters play through the full game, including trying out all easter eggs and codes (which the developers must supply) and all parts of the game that theoretically can't be accesses by the player (like the "Hot Coffee" scene), along with penalties for companies that don't fully disclose such things, would be a pretty reasonable and reliable method to judge games.
The ESA also has steadfastly opposed any legislative attempts to regulate game sales, instead of trying to work with lawmakers to develop legislation that is acceptable to as many people as possible. Certainly opposing legislation that is too broad and poorly defined is justified, but they should offer an alternative law. This will show that the gaming industry is reasonable and willing to compromise, and will leave the anti-gaming groups with little to use against the gaming industry. Any problem would be due to a lapse in enforcement, it wouldn't be the gaming industry's fault anymore.
This issue isn't going to go away until the reasonable people on each side find a compromise. That would leave the radicals and the reactionaries with little ammunition to continue the battle, and should appease most the voting public on both sides.
Edit: I might add that the ESA and gaming in general has quite a bit of power and support. They very likely have the strength at this point to pass violent video game sales legislation that is favorable to the gaming industry (such as simply legally enforcing the ESRB ratings). However, that may not always be the case. If something were to go wrong, a such as a serious mishap with the ratings, a school shooting with a very obvious link to games, very damaging anti-gaming scientific studies, or an unfriendly supreme court, the ESA may find itself without enough political power to fight more damaging legislation. It is important for the ESA to act now, when they are strong and their opponents are weak, to reform the ESRB and pass their own legislation now that could very easily stave off more damaging legislation down the road if something went wrong.
Posted: 2006-03-12 08:08pm
by Joe
Where did you get the 90 million figure, Valdy?
Re: Clinton calls on CDC to classify video games as a diseas
Posted: 2006-03-12 08:11pm
by TheBlackCat
Dominus Atheos wrote:The original version of the bill earmarked $90 million for the study, but Lieberman press secretary Rob Sawicki said that the committee had approved the measure without any dollar figure and that such a figure would be added later during the appropriations process.
Posted: 2006-03-12 08:13pm
by Joe
Oh, that's what happens when you type "milliom" instead of million into the find function. Thanks.
Posted: 2006-03-12 10:43pm
by Equinox2003
I'm stunned. Just when you think you have heard the stupidest thing on Earth....somebody comes up with something even more stupid. I would laugh at this but they are spending hard earned tax dollars on this.
How sad...
Posted: 2006-03-12 11:22pm
by brianeyci
Listen all, you're all missing the point! This is a blessing! Clinton's a goddess!
Think about it! If this passes, you'll be able to get a disability sticker for your car! Disability benefits! Welfare for life! Constant cheques from your insurance company! And all you have to do is PLAY GAMES ALL DAY bwhahahahaha.
We gamers are very sick people.
Best part is... we control the CURE!
Now go kill some noobs!
P.S. either gamers are sick or they aren't you can't have it both ways Hillary Rodam Clinton. Treat them like diseased people or let your constituents play their games
.
Brian
Posted: 2006-03-13 12:39am
by Solauren
I can see them getting video game addiction classified as a disease, but not the games themselves.
Oh yeah, Pong is a fringing disease.
Posted: 2006-03-13 01:07am
by LongVin
brianeyci wrote:Listen all, you're all missing the point! This is a blessing! Clinton's a goddess!
Think about it! If this passes, you'll be able to get a disability sticker for your car! Disability benefits! Welfare for life! Constant cheques from your insurance company! And all you have to do is PLAY GAMES ALL DAY bwhahahahaha.
We gamers are very sick people.
Best part is... we control the CURE!
Now go kill some noobs!
P.S. either gamers are sick or they aren't you can't have it both ways Hillary Rodam Clinton. Treat them like diseased people or let your constituents play their games
.
Brian
That be great
Police Officer: Sir you can't park here this is for disabled peoples only.
Me: I am disabled look at the sticker
PO: Just how are you disabled.
Me: I'm a chronic gamer. Tried everything just can't quit.
PO: OH in that case carry on sir. Sorry to disturb you.
Me: No problem officer have a good day!
Now you know what would be funny if they proved that kids who play games are less likely to go out and commit crimes, do drugs, smoke and drink because they are you know inside most of the night playing video games.