The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act of Video Games.

I know that I have already posted on this, but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit by and let the government intrude on what kinds of video games that I can play. I, personally, like and prefer violent video games. They are cathartic, especially after dealing with rush hour traffic. According to an article over at, junior Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Joseph Lieberman, both Democrats, have authored a bill that could possibly have some devastating effects on the video game industry.

In what amounts to the equivalent of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act for video games, this legislation would give the government unprecedented powers of regulation over the industry. What is interesting is that the ratings that the government wants to make law are those same self-imposed ratings that the industry came up with on its own.

If we already have a rating system in place that people are already abiding by, then why do we need to make it a law?

Senator Clinton has made some interesting remarks about why they authored this bill:

"video game content is getting more and more violent and sexually explicit."
In my opinion, it isn't the violence that is bothering them, rather it is the sexual content. Violence has been a part of video games ever since you could shoot down airplanes on your Atari system. What I'm having a problem understanding is how two Democrats could have a problem with the freedom of expression inherent in these video games. Wasn't it the democrats who were supportive of the artist who displayed a picture of the Virgin Mary made out of elephant feces and dead farm animals in 1999 at the Brooklyn Museum of Arts? I know that I am painting with broad strokes here, but in this case the generalization supports the point that typically it is the Democrats who are more liberal and allow more "controversial" stuff into the public arena because it broadens our minds.

Why is it that the left preaches that we should be tolerant of all beliefs, except for those that the right hold?

Another interesting quote from Senator Clinton is:
"A majority of parents are feeling increasingly victimized by a culture of violence that makes it difficult to protect their children against influences they find to be inappropriate,"
Isn't this the same thing that Christians everywhere are trying to do? "Protect their children against influences they find to be inappropriate?" We can't teach Creationism or even Intelligent Design as alternatives to Evolution? What about the influences that are already out there that parents don't want their children exposed to? Ex: Will & Grace, The L word, etc.

As is to be expected, the pissing match has already begun.

As the shirt says:

Shirt available for purchase here.

Posted byJ. R. Guinness at 10:58 PM  


Anonymous said... 11:15 PM  

Excellent! Someone with enough brains to realize--and quote--the full name of the USAPATRIOT act which, by the way, stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism." A chill went up my spine when I first read that. Hmmmmm... Nameless, faceless, non-elected people deciding what tools are "appropriate?" Scary...

J. R. Guinness said... 2:16 AM  

Thanks for the comment. Yeah, people, including me, are a little bit lazy when they leave off the USA part of U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act. It also bugs me when they don't put the periods inbetween the letters. It's an acronym people.

Other than that, thank you for reading the post. The act is scary.

Post a Comment