Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Clinton, Lieberman Propose CDC Investigate Games 429

Gamespot reports that Senators Clinton and Lieberman have asked the Centers for Disease control to investigate how games impact us poor deluded citizens. From the article: "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. 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." Gamasutra has some background on the bill, which was originally proposed in 2003.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Clinton, Lieberman Propose CDC Investigate Games

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn&gmail,com> on Thursday March 09, 2006 @03:50PM (#14885484) Journal
    When I first read this article, I thought that the CDC had no right to deciding what is and what is not mentally healthy for raising my children.

    As mission statement [cdc.gov] says:
    To promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability. The CDC seeks to accomplish its mission by working with partners throughout the nation and the world to
    • monitor health,
    • detect and investigate health problems,
    • conduct research to enhance prevention,
    • develop and advocate sound public health policies,
    • implement prevention strategies,
    • promote healthy behaviors,
    • foster safe and healthful environments,
    • provide leadership and training.
    I don't think any of those are really concentrating on developmental mental health of my child. However, after looking at the the CDC page on child development [cdc.gov] it looks like they do consider themselves watchdogs of how children should be raised to some extent:
    The early years of a child's life are crucial for cognitive, social and emotional development. Therefore, it is important that we take every step necessary to ensure that children grow up in environments where their social, emotional and educational needs are met.

    Cost to society of less than optimal development are enormous and far-reaching. Children who grow up in environments where their developmental needs are not met are at an increased risk for compromised health and safety, and learning and developmental delays. Failure to invest time and resources during children's early years may have long term effects on the foster care, health care, and education systems. Therefore, it is in the public's interest to ensure that children develop in safe, loving, and secure environments.
    It then goes on to provide activity charts for the ranges of years for small children.

    Where do we draw the line at what is considered "neglect" by a parent?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Where do we draw the line at what is considered "neglect" by a parent?

      Simple, right where the line between responsibility of protecting innocents meets the border of nanny state.

      Hmm. Of course, I have no idea where that lies.

      • by Anonymous Coward
        Basically this will involve getting various "think-tanks" to research the claims until they get the result they are looking for... Look shiny!!!
      • by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @04:27PM (#14885857)
        Of course, Hillary believes it takes a community to raise a child. I, on the other hand, believe it takes parents.
        • by Vaystrem ( 761 ) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @06:05PM (#14886785)
          "Of course, Hillary believes it takes a community to raise a child. I, on the other hand, believe it takes parents."

          Your absolutely right, and your absolutely wrong. Yes it takes parents to raise a child, assuming you have parents which hundreds of thousands of orphans from the AIDS crisis and other crises around the world do not.

          The point that was being made by the author was that the role of the community in its own development, and the development of its members, is important and significant. How that community is structured, is it inclusive? is it a positive environment? is it safe? does it have the resources necessary to promote growth? (economic environmental and social)

          There are so many factors that are beyond the control of parents. You want to look at drug abuse, violence, exclusion, poverty, whatever, all of them are incredibly linked to the community. The individual, and certainly not the parents, do not control the context in which they live their lives. If our communities degenerate, or continue to degenerate as many authors have suggested, it won't matter what kind of parent you are - you can only teach your child so much and shield them from so much. Beyond that the responsibility lies with your child, and the environment they interact within, namely 'the community' on whatever plan you choose to identify it (municipality -> nation -> nation-state -> continent, etc)
          • You make some good points, I'll admit, but parents are the first line upbringing. Orphans are an entirely different matter, so that's a pretty moot point... of course it takes an orphanage to raise an orphan when no suitable adoptive parents are available... but the preference is on finding parents.

            As for the other things - the preference always goes to letting the parent decide. For example, who decides if the community is "structured" well enough? Define "positive" environment? A bunch of hippies prea
    • * monitor health, * detect and investigate health problems, * conduct research to enhance prevention, * develop and advocate sound public health policies, * implement prevention strategies, * promote healthy behaviors, * foster safe and healthful environments, * provide leadership and training.

      They are going to do a conduct research to detect and investigate if this is a health problem. If there is a health problem they will do everthing el
    • Clearly, this sort of study is all about finding out just what might be causing such serious harm that it is worthy of societal intervention. It used to be that we said physical discipline was a parent's right. Now we have numerous scientific studies that say that kids who are beaten so hard they wind up in the hospital have serious, society draining problems for the rest of their lives, so we have decided the line is somewhere before that position, and everybody who works with kids are now mandated repor
    • Where do we draw the line at what is considered "neglect" by a parent?

      Yeah, good luck with that one.

      I can't tell you how many times I've read some /. comment that says "noone can tell me how to raise my kids!" and "keep the government out of my way as a parent!" etc. But any "line" and any "neglect" is really just your individual understanding of morality.

      For instance, a hundred years back, it wasn't uncommon for a child of 10, 11 to labor in the fields of his/her parents farm for 8-12 hours a day,

  • by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @03:53PM (#14885509) Homepage Journal
    What I want to know is, when will the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms figure out what to do with the Space Program while the Federal Aviation Administration revitalizes our nation's public school system?
  • by Shadow Wrought ( 586631 ) * <shadow@wrought.gmail@com> on Thursday March 09, 2006 @03:53PM (#14885518) Homepage Journal
    If they will be providing games to participants int he study I'll happily volunteer.

    Then frag you all! mwahahahahaha

  • Aaugh! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Golias ( 176380 ) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @03:53PM (#14885519)
    Please, Senator Lieberman. You're one of the only active Democrats in power which I don't desperately want to punch in the throat. I was even a fan of your ill-fated White House bid.

    Please, disconnect yourself from that shrill harpy of an ex-First Lady, and come back to sanity.
    • Lierberman has been leading the Congressional fight against video games for as long as I can remember.

      He was the first Congressman to start this shit.
    • Re:Aaugh! (Score:5, Informative)

      by jonnythan ( 79727 ) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @04:02PM (#14885605) Homepage
      From Wikipedia:

      "Political positions

      Censorship

      Lieberman has been criticized by many computer and video game players for his stance on video games; he is a strong supporter of video game censorship. He has also been vocal in the censorship of many controversial musical artists. In the late 1990s Lieberman was vocal in lobbying for censorship against shock rocker Marilyn Manson, calling his group "one of the sickest" he had ever seen. As a senator he inspired the advent of the Entertainment Software Rating Board. The Entertainment Software Association is against governmental regulation of or restriction on video games. Therefore, the organization opposes Lieberman. He has been known many times to denounce the violence contained in video games and has made attempts to regulate sales of violent video games to minors.

      On November 29, 2005, Lieberman, together with Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act. The act is intended to protect children from inappropriate content found in video games."
    • Re:Aaugh! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nmb3000 ( 741169 ) <nmb3000@that-google-mail-site.com> on Thursday March 09, 2006 @04:07PM (#14885650) Journal
      Please, Senator Lieberman. You're one of the only active Democrats in power which I don't desperately want to punch in the throat.

      Please, disconnect yourself from that shrill harpy of an ex-First Lady, and come back to sanity.


      He's not going to drop this issue or the harpy. The issue is a "hot" one that will get his name spread around the news and the harpy is (unfortunately) supposed to be the "Next Big Thing" (s/Thing/Flop ?)

      So now you feel like punching all those Democrats in the throat. Welcome to the club.
    • Re:Aaugh! (Score:2, Insightful)

      Please Senator Lieberman, you're a Republican at heart, so you should switch parties. Hillary should go too, and we'll replace you with some real liberals who stand for our rights, especially those in the Bill of Rights.
    • by SewersOfRivendell ( 646620 ) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @04:25PM (#14885842)
      This is going to be slightly off-topic. Fair warning, mods.

      You're one of the only active Democrats in power which I don't desperately want to punch in the throat

      1. That's because he's actually a Republican, and he's going to be replaced this year by the fed-up netroots. Lieberman was one reason Gore failed to get enough votes to overcome the fraud in 2000. And what power? The Republicans control congress, the judiciary, and the executive branch. What power do Democrats have at all?

      2. Fear is what motivates wingnuts. You also like Lieberman because, like yourself, he's a coward. He's afraid of the terrorists, and so, like the Republicans who control the Congress at the moment, he's willing to give away our civil rights to the terrorists in exchange for some perception -- any perception, however false -- of safety. This is really important to understand, everyone. The wingnuts are AFRAID. The Shrub administration runs on fear.

      A successful Democratic candidate in 2008 will be one who stands up and says "we are the heirs of Patrick Henry; we will never stand down in the face of a threat to our domestic tranquility. To the terrorists, I say: we will find you and root you out; we will never submit to your tyranny-by-proxy and to your threats. We will not surrender our civil rights."

      3. Why do Republicans always resort to violence as the first response to anything? If Karl Rove was a Democrat, some demented wingnut such as yourself would have long since assassinated him. Bush's approval rating is now far below Clinton's approval rating at any time during the Clinton presidency, and yet you don't see anyone firing bullets at the white house [fas.org].

      If there's anyone you should want to "punch in the throat," it should be Osama bin Laden. Where's your enthusiasm for that, where's your passion for finding and killing the real enemies of the state? Why is it all aimlessly pointed at harmless centrist targets like Hillary? Why not Laura Bush, who actually did kill someone [freerepublic.com] (accidentally, mind you, according to the police record)?

      4. I don't understand why Hillary sends all you wingnuts into incoherent rage. Discounting the tinfoil hat fairytales Limbaugh spews, she's a great match for the right wing: she has your sense of professional ethics and morality. Loves to pander to the rich and powerful. Loves to be right-wing. Will give away civil rights at the drop of a hat. Loves Iraq as a US colony. About the only thing you shouldn't like about her is her stand on healthcare, but she's flexible like her husband, so I don't think you have anything to worry about. She's hardly the moral beacon that this country will really need after eight years of the corrosive Shrub and his Halliburton-fellating cronies.
      • oops. "civil rights" should be "civil liberties" in the Patrick Henry paragraph.
      • You also like Lieberman because, like yourself, he's a coward.

        You might want to re-evaluate your mind-reading skills there, chief.

        I like Lieberman for a host of reasons, none of which my post mentioned; mostly fiscal policies and lobbying reform.

        I'm losing a little respect for him over this Dubai port deal thing, and I'm certainly not crazy about his riding the anti-videogame bandwagon, but there are bigger issues to consider.
      • Why do Republicans always resort to violence as the first response to anything?

        Sorry to shatter your convenient theories, but I'm not a Republican. I usually vote thrid-party.

        (And before you tell me that I'm wasting my vote, let me point out that I'm from the state where Ventura won in spite of two EXTREMELY well-known and relatively popular republicrat candidates running against him.)
      • Hillary, former Goldwater girl, is a neocon [counterpunch.org].

        She's horrible on all the issues I care about.

        She's in favor of that quagmire in Iraq [counterpunch.org]

        In favor of getting us into a losing war with Iran [counterpunch.org]

        Pro-Patriot Act(and probably brewing her own "improved" version in her cauldron as we speak)

        anti-immigration [washingtontimes.com]

        pro-banning video games...

        I hate the woman. Ditto for Joe Lieberman. (Mega-Dittoes to Joe Lieberman.... heh... heh... heh...)

        I don't think Lieberman (or any government official) is for fascist measures be

    • Re:Aaugh! (Score:3, Informative)

      Please, Senator Lieberman. You're one of the only active Democrats in power which I don't desperately want to punch in the throat.

      Really? I would have thought that someone even remotely familiar with Lieberman's record in office would not be surprised by this. He's always been of fan of this kind of big-government nanny program.
  • by slashbob22 ( 918040 ) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @03:53PM (#14885521)
    Why do we need the CDC to investigate? I think it would be better handled by an addictions group. The ONLY plausible reason to get the CDC involved is to have access to those bio-containment suits while they visit the homes of some of the most entranced gamers.
    • by Surt ( 22457 )
      DSM-IV diagnosed mental disorders are considered diseases, and are considered appropriate research areas for CDC grants. The theory here is that games may be a cause of DSM-IV diseases, and so should be researched further by the CDC. It's much like child abuse, the CDC funds tons of research on that, but it's not like you catch some virus and start hitting your kids. It's about what is good for the public health, and the health and functioning of our society as a whole.

  • Stupid, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by d34thm0nk3y ( 653414 ) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @03:55PM (#14885537)
    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.

    At least they are treating games on the same level as movies etc for a change instead of pretending there is some magical difference.
    • The magical difference is in hours of exposure. Most TV programs last 1/2 or one hour, most movies 1.5 or 2. Most games > 8. That's a lot of repetitive training for the brain. Games are also interactive, while TV/movies are passive. I would absolutely expect serious differences between the impact of games and tv/movies. Why wouldn't you?
  • by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Thursday March 09, 2006 @03:55PM (#14885541) Journal
    Oh, never mind...
    • Dick Durbin I know nothing about, but Lieberman and Hillary are probbably the two WORST democratic senators out their. Lieberman is a Democrat in name only. Hillary teams up with scum like Rick Santorum. She's certainly winning no votes on the Democrats side, and I seriously doubt she's fooling any Republican moderates. Keep it up Democrats, and you'll lose to an actual moderate like Mccain, and not a pretend one like yourselves.
  • How about we investigate the effect our crappy government and paying taxes has on our citizens?
  • brain research (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Colonel Panic ( 15235 ) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @03:56PM (#14885546)
    I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on /. (other than the fact that most /.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers) to the idea that activities you engage in for a large percentage of your time can have an impact on brain development and function. Those changes in brain structure can lead to changes in behavior - that's the emerging consensus from scientists who research the brain.
    • Right now they're busy coming to grips with this coming from a Clinton and not a Bush.
      • Re:brain research (Score:2, Insightful)

        by EABird ( 554070 )
        Right now they're busy coming to grips with this coming from a Clinton and not a Bush.

        Why would this surprise you? Both are involved in government. The primary activity that government performs is passing and enforcing laws. Laws, by definition, limit freedom. Democratic Laws limit freedom just as much as Republican Laws. They just limit different freedoms.

        The only problem is that laws have a nasty tendency of never going away. While half of the population desires one set of laws, the other hal
    • by John Miles ( 108215 ) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @04:21PM (#14885799) Homepage Journal
      I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on /. (other than the fact that most /.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers) to the idea that activities you engage in for a large percentage of your time can have an impact on brain development and function. Those changes in brain structure can lead to changes in behavior - that's the emerging consensus from scientists who research the brain.

      The resistance comes from the implications of your proposition with respect to what it means to be a human being.

      To the extent that books, movies, and computer games actually have a deleterious effect on adolescents' brain development, they are effectively the same as executable content. It's not much of a leap from there to conclude that people, or at least children, are nothing more than sophisticated programmable devices -- machines that have no free will to choose their own influences in life. It's an argument that rests on determinism, which bothers freethinking geeks the same way evolution frightens protestant Christians.

      More specifically: if it turns out to be true that children can be "programmed" by media exposure alone, then everything Hilary Clinton has ever said about child-rearing being a collective responsibility suddently gains a lot of scientific weight. Any conservative who's tempted to jump onto this particular bandwagon had better think carefully about its direction and speed of travel. The bandwagon's next stop will be in the far-flung territories mapped by Huxley.
      • t's not much of a leap from there to conclude that people, or at least children, are nothing more than sophisticated programmable devices -- machines that have no free will to choose their own influences in life. It's an argument that rests on determinism, which bothers freethinking geeks the same way evolution frightens protestant Christians.

        Ah, the Free Will thing... yes it can come down to that I suppose. Most 'geeks' are probably libertarians (both in the philosophical and political sense, but here I
    • Re:brain research (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kbonapart ( 645754 )
      Because we fear a bias within the study, or questions phrased in such a way to give the results that the sponsors of the bill want to hear.

      "Researcher" One: Now that you've played five hours of GTA, do you think stealing cars from other people can be fun in the game?
      Timmy: I guess so.

      Headline: Research Finds That GTA Makes Kids Want To Steal!

      Oh course, I don't think it would be that far, but studies such as this will be trumpeted from every news stand if they find something damning, and buried if
    • I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on /. (other than the fact that most /.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers) to the idea that activities you engage in for a large percentage of your time can have an impact on brain development and function.

      Because the conclusion is always that the activities we /.ers grew up loving will surely turn you into a disconnected, emotionless, killing robot.

    • Not a gamer myself but this is just another rehash of the old nature vs. nature argument that's been going on ever since John Locke said "give me the child and I'll give you the man."

      There's always been violent games. Ever play cops and robbers? Ever shoot a cop?

      There might be a link between violent games and real life but establishing that as a scientific fact with real double-blind scientific data that precludes pseudo-scientific subjective interpretations by psychologists has always illuded researc
    • newsflash (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ender Ryan ( 79406 )
      Newsflash, most gamers these days are adults. How many times does it need to be repeated?

    • Re:brain research (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Psmylie ( 169236 ) *
      I think the main reason that people resist this type of research is because studies like this are typically either exaggerated or spun in a way that supports the conclusions of the people pushing the study, in this case Lieberman and Clinton. The bias of a very small number of people can be quickly turned into "scientific fact" by politicians and the media. It's better not to do the research at all unless we can guarantee that the research is performed and distributed in an unbiased fashion.
    • Re:brain research (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BeanThere ( 28381 )

      I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on /. (other than the fact that most /.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers) to the idea that activities you engage in for a large percentage of your time can have an impact on brain development and function.

      It's not that idea to which there is resistance - it's the idea that it should be legislated and regulated even if the idea is true. "Freedom" means allowing people to do basically anything so long as those things don't harm others or impinge on the freedom

  • Freedom of Speech? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by parasonic ( 699907 )
    The spirit of the whole concept of Freedom of Speech is speech with no government interference. This includes psychological war-games that the government likes to play with us creating propaganda (if even "merely" justifications) about ideas which it doesn't like and which the people do. I wholeheartedly believe that video game violence does not equate enough with real-life violence to create a correlation strong enough to trigger violent "thought-crimes." From what I've seen in high school and college, 3D
  • If the CDC is going to be investigating non-tangible diseases, it should first start with that of scapegoating, that is, finding surrogate explanations when the real one is unpalatable.
  • I can live with it if it's even remotely like this [camra.org.uk]

    Bob
  • Free speech (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @03:59PM (#14885578)
    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.

    It shouldn't matter if there's "harm". Games are free speech.

    What a bunch of BS, BTW. "Harm." People have free will and control their own actions.

    If games have the power to override free will by accident, then we have a bigger problem. Someone will eventually harness this power to create an army of servants and take over the world.

    Come to think of it, that would make a fun game.
    • "What a bunch of BS, BTW. "Harm." People have free will and control their own actions."

      Your evidence for which is what, precisely? Philosophers (and, more recently, psychologists, neuroscientists etc.) have been arguing for a long time about whether there is such a thing as free will. The existence of drug addicts, alcoholics, psychopaths, Tourettes and Asperger's Syndrome suggests that for many people "free will" is severely circumscribed. I don't know whether this is an appropriate area for government in

      • The existence of drug addicts, alcoholics, psychopaths, Tourettes and Asperger's Syndrome suggests that for many people "free will" is severely circumscribed.

        Folks who don't have free will need a responsible guardian appointed for them. A doctor or a warden are two common choices.
    • Re:Free speech (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Surt ( 22457 )
      Of course it matters if there is harm. That's why you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_cr owded_theater [wikipedia.org]

      Imagine if subliminal advertising worked. Would you support coca cola having the right to brainwash you with television commercials that forced you to buy their product against your will?

      Now imagine that it is proven that violent games cause physiological brain changes that predispose you to acts of violence.
  • Meddling! (Score:2, Redundant)

    by Syberghost ( 10557 )
    Damn those meddling Republicans, intruding into our personal lives!

    Oh, wait...
  • Ratings system? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Thursday March 09, 2006 @04:02PM (#14885604)
    Isn't the ratings system supposed to prevent kids from getting violent games? I know that it doesn't work, but still there are laws out there. Make buying these games by minors just as tough as buying alcohol or cigarettes.

    Why is it always people that know little or nothing about video games are always the ones railing so hard against them? It's also interesting that neither Clinton nor Lieberman are saying anything about the TV & Movie industry constantly having violence in their shows/movies which may also harm children.
    God forbid a naked breast showing up somewhere. That would be instantly banned and deemed harmful...strange world we live in.
    • Re:Ratings system? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No matter how many times I read this site, I am still shocked to find that people in America actually believe that there are laws governing video game sales. There are not. Every state that has tried to institute one has either failed to actually pass it, or had the law stricken down by the courts, because laws governing speech as if it were tobacco or alcohol are unconstitutional laws.

      Same thing with movies. There is no law saying that a ten year old can't watch an R-rated movie unattended in a theater.
    • Re:Ratings system? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jackie_Chan_Fan ( 730745 ) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @05:13PM (#14886298)
      Isn't the ratings system supposed to prevent kids from getting violent games? I know that it doesn't work

      It does work. I've said this time and time again. I've witnessed young kids trying to buy violent games at EB and the EB employee would not sell them it. I've seen mothers ask the EB employees, "is this game violent?" and the EB employees would answer with honesty.

      I was buying Mortal Kombat V, and a little kid and his mother were buying a WWF (WWE) game. She asked "Is this game too violent?" And the EB employee said "It has some violence, but its not very graphic. There is fighting of course but there is no death, blood or bad language" And then the EB employee looks over to me standing next to the mother and points at Mortal Kombat V and says "Now the game he is buying, is very violent" :) We grinned at each other haha

      IT HAPPENS. The EB employees do their job... ESPECIALLY when the parents do their job and ask the right questions.

      This is key. The rating systems work. The parents that use it, succeed at chosing games they find appropriate, and when in doubt, if they ask an EB employee, they will tell them in more detail!

      The System works!!!!

      The politicans are using this angle to win votes. They're trying to erode freedoms based on a non issue. We've solved this issue years ago with the rating systems. We solved this issue years ago in the 60s with music, with movies... we've been here time and time again...

      ASK before buying... Use the rating system... USE your V-chip....

      People need to stop blaiming the world for their lack of parenting... AND they need to stop letting politicians throw issues infront of us like peices of meat. These are non issues that have been solved time and time again.

      I'm just affraid that this time we'll go the other way and completely ruin our free country.
  • I'm sure that they'll hire people tops in the field of study, just like Meese did when he set up his committee to investigate pornography back in the '80s.
  • Now I'm a liberal, and proud of it. Why am I a liberal? I like the whole liberty thing. But, Hillary and Joe don't seem to get that. Sure I don't want a big company selling harmful products, but lets please separate ones views of decency from harm.

    In this article, they do talk about the CDC, and that is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. So, why this study? Is it to make sure the new Nintendo controller is ergonomically safe? I doubt it! It's to grab some of them "values-voters."

    Th
    • I'm not a liberal nor am I a conservative. I see each issue and form my own opinion based on what I think is "right" or the "best choice". I don't lock myself into some club and I'm surprised that so many people do. Sorry to rant, but it makes my head hurt when I see comments start with "I'm a liberal, and proud of it." Maybe I should say "I form my own opinions and I'm proud of that."
    • Why am I a liberal? I like the whole liberty thing.

      I'm a conservative for the same reason.

      Actually, the truth is that we're both pro-liberty, regardless of our other political leanings. Neither liberals nor conservatives "own" freedom.

    • The movie rating system is not from the government.
      http://www.filmratings.com/ [filmratings.com]
      Read the questions and answers. It's a voluntary system that movie theaters have adopted to prevent the possibility of government censorship. Unrated movies can be and are filmed, distributed, and shown in movie theaters across the country.

  • The internet, computers, and by extenstion gaming displaced TV in terms of hours spent consuming. That is the root cause of this bill. Congress is searching for ways to protect the media companies.
  • If Only... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dr. Eggman ( 932300 ) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @04:09PM (#14885670)
    If only they'd find that it turns out games are good for a child's development like/for...

    Biligualism:
    http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/12/ 0733237 [slashdot.org]

    Staving off Dementia:
    http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/06/ 1543201 [slashdot.org]

    Bridge the gap between law enforcement and youths:
    http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/20/ 031257 [slashdot.org]

    Good Values like trust:
    http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/27/ 1851235 [slashdot.org]

    Showing that actions have concequences:
    http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/26/ 225240 [slashdot.org]


    But unfortunatly, I can't see this study being anything but biased against games. At least it just a political show, designed to make the proponents look more moderate and appear to care about your children.
  • that governmental power is bi-partisan affair. both parties are equally bad. in fact, things like this transcend party affiliation. what pisses me off is that government intrudes too much into our lives, from taxation, spending, regulation, etc. somehow we've come to the conclusion that unless the government provides health care, whatever, people are going to die. a government powerful enough to give you everything is also powerful enough to take it away. party affiliation notwithstanding.
  • So in other words "Hey, CDC, I'll abuse my power to give you $90 million if you'll make me a report that says games are evil, so then I will look like i'm protecting everyones kids and i'll get elected for president"
  • Videogames dont make people violent...

    Politicians fucking with our freedoms.... make people violent.

    Remember the wars, you cunt, you lieberdick.... 4th of july anyone?

    Remember...? Does anyone fucking remember what this country is about anymore?

    Its scary when our leaders are hell bent on eroding our freedoms, just to win votes.

    THINK ABOUT IT.

  • I vote Democrat and I would like to see Clinton in office by 2008 but stuff like this really gives me pause...I wish she would focus more on the relevant issues. Maybe she's trying to secure the soccer mom vote with stuff like this, but she's also alienating dem geeks around the country.
  • I always knew that too much Leisure Suit Larry would come back to haunt me!
  • Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the people leading the fight to ban GTA (Hillary Clinton and Joseph Lieberman) are part of an organization, the Democratic Leadership Council, that was set up with money generated by the Lansky Mob?

    The DLC was--and is--a creature of New York high roller Michael Steinhardt, son of Sol Steinhardt, a jewel fence for the Meyer Lansky mob. Like most of organized crime, Steinhardt fils decided to go upmarket and merge with Wall Street. His millions created the Hon.

  • by PCM2 ( 4486 ) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @04:24PM (#14885829) Homepage
    In the 1950s, comic books were the great evil corrupting our youth. One glance at the covers [uky.edu] was enough to tell you that these things were leading to the downfall of Western civilization. They actually held Congressional hearings to decide what to do about the "comic book problem."

    The result was that all the comic book publishers banded together and formed a voluntary rating system. [wikipedia.org] In effect, they censored themselves. The new rules said that, since comic books were for kids, no comic books were allowed to include words like "teror," "horror," or "crime" in their titles; comics could not feature werewolves, vampires, or other elements of the supernatural; if any crime was depicted in a comic book, the criminals would have to come to justice for their crimes by the end of the story; and so on. The net effect was that an entire genre of horror and crime comic books went out of business. You know some of those comic books -- for example, Tales from the Crypt. There were many others, however. In its heyday, a comic book called Crime Does Not Pay outsold not just Tales from the Crypt but the entire output of that book's publisher (E.C. Comics) combined. It too went out of business, just months after Tales from the Crypt and the other E.C. horror comics, once the Comics Code took effect.

    And so the world was safe. Kids stopped being juvenile delinquents, at least the ones who were able to stay away from that awful rock 'n roll music. It was a halcyon age, a veritable paradise, for the next 30 years or so.

    But then in the 1980s, rap music came along, and heavy metal, and they were even worse than rock 'n roll. This aural poison proved to be all but irresistable to kids. So a brave group of moral citizens, [wikipedia.org] led by the wife of future Democratic presidential hopeful Al Gore, banded together to slap labels on rap albums, warning parents about the horrors inside. Again we were safe.

    But now the evil rears its ugly head again -- video games! We tried using a ratings system on them, but nobody went out of business (unlike the comic book publishers in the 50s). How long can we as citizens stand for this?? Clearly something must be done if this cycle of moral depravity is ever going to end!


  • That's just down the street. Maybe I can score a contract to "work" with the CDC "studying" the effect of games on my health. What do you folks think? 10 year study?

  • by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Thursday March 09, 2006 @04:25PM (#14885844) Homepage Journal
    Interstate Commerce Clause used in the absolute opposite way to what the framers intended. I'd love to know how much of the money spent in these investigations goes to pork and preferential cronyism.
  • "They'll come at you sideways. That's how they think, that's how they move. Sidle up with a smile... hit you where you're weak."
    Serenity, Shepherd Book

  • by Steve B ( 42864 ) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @05:00PM (#14886187)
    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."

    Meaning: These clowns intend to waste MORE THAN $90,000,000 on this idiocy.

  • by lpangelrob ( 714473 ) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @05:27PM (#14886420)
    If you're interested in more material in the same line of thinking, here's a good column that got published in the Chicago Tribune [chicagotribune.com] today. (Reg. required after 5 hits to the Trib website).

    In a nutshell, it describes the anecdotal reactions of four to six year olds of various R-rated movies in movie theatres (the ones specifically mentioned are The Ring and Eurotrip). The column ends with the subject of the column (not the columnist) thinking of laws banning children (she thinks of 4-6 year olds, clearly everyone here would think 18 years and under) from watching R-rated movies, period.

    A good quote from the column is this:

    "Kids up to the age of 6 or 7," she said by phone, "don't know the difference between fantasy and reality. What they see, they experience as if it were happening."

    What's more, she said, "Young kids are very responsive to visual images, and grotesque, violent visual images are inherently scary. If they see a monster or a vicious-looking villain chasing somebody with a knife, they don't make any allowances for the fact that this is somebody's dream or that it didn't really happen. Until their brains develop further, they can't put anything into context."

    Also consider that, again anecdotally, children did not have nearly the same reaction to watching images of 9/11 as adults did. They didn't think it was real. Would the reaction have been the same in 1950?

    Anyways, I'm not really pushing for or against any particular viewpoint at this time, other than I can't see why the CDC shouldn't at least look at the issue.

  • prohibition (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Myopic ( 18616 ) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @07:00PM (#14887179)
    ha ha. now the computer gamers will know how the marijuana smokers feel.

    what you need to understand is that there doesn't need to be a *factual* harm to justify prohibition, there only needs to be a *perceived* harm. sorry, that's democracy.

Egotist: A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...