The Seeker wrote:Barret wrote:Fuck that. She's saying "Police Our Children since we can't do it for ourselves." The CDC needs to look into Movies and Music too. Fuck these politicans.
I'm voting for me, myself and I in the next election since no one else seems to be able to run a country much less a family these days.
What is wrong with that statement ("Police Our Children since we can't do it for ourselves.")? It's clearly not possible for parents to "police" their children after they reach a certain age.
I also strongly disagree that policing children is a proper way to run a "family these days." Wouldn't you think that a child would develop some sort of negative social issue if they were policed all the time by their parents? What does your vote have anything to do with this?
I somehow doubt that your vote will effect Hillary Clinton in any way since you are from St. Louis and she's from Chicago (according to Wikipedia), will any of the candidates that you are voting for mirror her opinion? Probably not, except perhaps the Republican one, and Hillary Clinton isn't even part of the republican party (according to Wikipedia).
Was it so bad when they banned cigarette sales to minors?
Much as I hate to agree with Seek, there is a related point I would like to make, which is that a lot of parents *don't* really parent their kids well. A lot do, but a lot don't, too. I've seen teenagers from the ghetto playing GTA and Tekken and etc. and going "this shit is tight", and I've seen ten-year-olds playing MMOs with graphic player-killing and a reputation for cybersex.
Are they going to shoot somebody up someday? There's a small chance. If they do, would they have done it even without videogames? Probably. But I do think that young children lack the experience with reality to understand some of the things they see in these games, and some teenagers lack the sense of moral responsibility (which again usually comes with age) to realize the consequences of the real-life versions of the glorified violence they see in games.
However, censorship is a slippery slope - what justifies a government to judge something as "harmful" or "obscene", and how does one make sure that legislation does not prevent free speech while it attempts to "protect" a certain part of the population? How does one account for differences of cultural taste and opinion in choosing what to censor - for instance, in the Midwest and South, which are heavily Christian, things might be considered harmful which would be largely ignored in California (for instance, references to cannabis or a certain threshold level of overt sexuality).
So I honestly don't know what the right answer is, but I am all right with a government passing legislation to prevent certain media from being in the hands of minors, PROVIDED THAT no legislation is ever passed which prevents media from being sold to adults because of content - which I don't think could ever happen anyway, because of the First Amendment.
However, seeing as how things are getting awfully right-wing around the world all of a sudden, I like to keep an eye on these things...because there are governments that will take away your liberty if you let them.
Are the gaming press so sensitive towards ANY news regarding possible laws against the games industry, regardless of the stature of those involved, that they make EVERYTHING into a big deal? 
