digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at blog.wired.com —

Clinton Would Crack Down on Computer-Generated Cartoon Sex

blog.wired.com — Clinton reveals today that she still sees the affair as a victory for child safety. She describe her introduction of the doomed Family Entertainment Protection Act as a response to the "illicit" sexual content in San Andreas, and says, as president, she'd support regulation of the gaming industry.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • lrdntwnd, on 12/22/2007, -3/+522This sort of thing is completely unnecessary. The video-game industry has every right to create whatever they want. If there's a market for it, it'll sell. If there isn't, then it won't. Making it illegal to sell a game isn't going to stop people from getting it nor will it stop people from making it. The solution is not to make something illegal. It didn't work with alcohol, it's not working with drugs, it won't work with video games and movies. There are much better ways to go about this than by writing laws. Parental responsibility comes to mind...
    • Chompy, on 12/22/2007, -2/+262The problem is that most people over 45 still believe that only children play games.. and they're the ones who vote. We're probably going to have to deal with this crap for another 30 years until enough of these idiots die off so that we can outvote them.

      Of course, then we'll be the old fogeys denouncing holographic furry sex as the downfall of our children, and some kid yet unborn will post these exact words on the holoweb about us. Thus the great circle of life will go on.
      • vapblack, on 12/22/2007, -0/+44very well done. dugg for originality.
        • tech42er, on 12/24/2007, -1/+1Do you see the irony in that statement? "Dugg for originality"? His whole point is that this is a repeating cultural generational cycle.
      • Synapse84, on 12/22/2007, -2/+77whats wrong with holographic furry sex?!
        • alexforcefive, on 12/22/2007, -1/+72IT'S DESTROYING OUR NATION!!!!!!!!!!!!
          • ShrimpCrackers, on 12/22/2007, -0/+14So does Clinton propose to do a specific trade embargo against Japan, the #1 exporter of this kind of stuff? (They've got computer sex games of anything). I mean come on, let it be. It was a mod. If anything the parents should be scolded, why were parents buying their little kids an Adults Only game?

            Does anyone care about responsible parenting anymore or do we want it to leave it to the government? We go down that path and it'll be like China during the Cultural Revolution years where your kids are sent off to school young and end up reporting you 1984 style because they are puppets of the government and you are not their parents, the government is.
          • Midnitte, on 12/23/2007, -4/+3Obviously these images support terrorists. Noobs.

            -.-....
          • knobtwiddler, on 12/23/2007, -1/+3she needs to watch 2 girls 1 cup.
        • bungoman, on 12/22/2007, -12/+14YIFF IN HELL FURFAG
        • GREENBRETH, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1My goal is to live until I get to experience holographic furry sex at least one time, but global warming will probably kill us all off before then.....
      • zmjone2992, on 12/22/2007, -0/+64I swear that I will support holographic furry sex if I produce children.
        • lowerlogic, on 12/22/2007, -17/+6if you produce children? On digg that argument is vacuously true.
        • MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6Something other than the obvious is not right with that sentence.
          • zmjone2992, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1there are many things wrong with my woefully constructed sentence.
      • bbqsalad, on 12/22/2007, -9/+2win.
    • delmar14, on 12/22/2007, -6/+58Parental responsibility died when people in this country decided to hand over their destiny (i.e. money and morals) to the federal government. Now everyone blames the great Beaurocracy for all their personal failings
      • nick111, on 12/23/2007, -11/+2*****
      • Memnochxx, on 12/23/2007, -4/+2Do you know what destiny means?
      • MrPig, on 12/23/2007, -2/+1It's easier this way; lazy America.
      • tech42er, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1Exactly. We need to regain personal freedom and personal responsibility. At least that's my take. If people want to create a private organization, that will act as a welfare state or regulate morals, fine, but don't force others into it. That's the main problem with government: you don't have a choice; you have to join in the system. ideally, the government would have much less power (only enough to prevent people from hurting others against their will) and people could create private groups to accomplish other tasks, like schools, postal systems, charity, etc.
    • shayne8181, on 12/22/2007, -5/+4not to mention its unconstitutional. why would time be wasted for this type of legislation, sexual content is available to minors in all forms of media. Also if the GTA san andreas required a download patch, im pretty sure a 7 year old isnt capable of this.
      • Ralan, on 12/22/2007, -5/+1You don't get it. They don't care how you do it, they just care that you can do it. I mean, they should have made this terribly violent, sexual game that the parents bought kid. I mean its not like they put a rating on it or anything.
      • Xizer, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Unconstitutionality hasn't stopped bad legislation before. The Supreme Court has already ruled that it's okay to violate the Constitution as long as they can get most people to go along with it. See: Miller v. California, the precedent which allows the government to censor pornography, which, believe it or not, is a form of speech. Also, there are laws like this on the books: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/us ...
    • 28dayslater, on 12/22/2007, -13/+7It is necessary. Looking at computer generated cartoon sex is a sense-offense.
      • tech42er, on 12/24/2007, -0/+2Then don't FUKCING look, you paternalistic jackass.
    • alex1015, on 12/22/2007, -0/+23Please don't mention responsibility, people won't understand what you mean
    • mattes5, on 12/22/2007, -0/+42I just remembered why I hate Hilary so bad
    • virtualme7, on 12/22/2007, -0/+30It isn't even porn. This is just as retarded as the one about the animals. Just go ahead and censor it all so kids can't go to the zoo, walk a dog or have a pet with a humping problem, or watch the Discovery channel. Oh and don't forget to censor the noise when i fart.
    • jimmiss, on 12/22/2007, -9/+2"Making it illegal to sell a game isn't going to stop people from getting it nor will it stop people from making it."

      Unfortunately it will.
    • floorman56, on 12/22/2007, -2/+16STUPID BUSH....Oh, wait....
    • MadEnvoy, on 12/22/2007, -1/+19Just another "War on..." that they can use to suck our money out of our pockets.
    • rz8472, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2Way to team up with that scumbag Lieberman, Hillary.
    • MasterThief117, on 12/23/2007, -0/+24She does not like the fact that computer generated people can have sex while she cannot.
      • Plinkotic, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1There's a Snuke in her Snizz, you wanna be the man, take one for the team, and risk the immediate 5 mile area? Let me get my binoculars and to a safe distance.
    • Tilon, on 12/23/2007, -4/+12We have to stop this ***** Socialism disease before it slippery slopes every single one of our damn rights out of existence.

      They just get away with whatever right-abusing powers they can, and try to play on people's emotions to see what they can squeeze in the door. Then they wait for people to get used to it, and do it again.

      Stepping Stones. Incrementalism. Deceit. It's the religion of our government now.

      WE MUST STOP IT.
      • davyjames, on 12/23/2007, -2/+7The only person we can know for SURE would veto this ***** would be Ron Paul, keep spreading the word and get the man elected
      • tech42er, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1It's paternalism These assholes (not just Clinton, but groups like the Parents' TV Council or DARE) think they should be able to tell others how to live their lives. They don't trust us with freedom, believing they need to protect us from ourselves or protect the children by taking away everyones' rights. The government is not supposed to act as a parent for us; it's not supposed to act as a nanny nor be a nanny state. It should guarantee our liberties by going after those who try to tke them away. What you call socialism is authoritarianism, paternalism. It needs to be stopped.
    • digalphabeta, on 12/23/2007, -0/+9LOL, democrats like Hilary think they are your parents. They believe it takes a community to raise a child, not the parents.
    • andrgo, on 12/23/2007, -0/+6Well I sure am glad to know she wants to "crack down" on CARTOONS, instead of street gangs, lead products from Asia, illegal immigrants, etc.
      I'm glad she has her priorities straight!
      [/sarcasm]

      The sad thing is though, is that she's pulling like 40-47% of the votes in most (not all, but quite a majority) of the states where pre-caucus polls have been conducted. It's sad that so many people are so brainwashed into following the Presidential campaigns with the most $$$ behind them. Wake up people, start looking at the 'underdogs' in all of the parties, the ones that don't let million-dollar bribes control their mouths.
    • 911cartoon, on 12/23/2007, -1/+5congrats.. u learned hillary is a ***** socialist yay. ron paul or the end of US.. make a choice
    • WebWorker, on 12/23/2007, -1/+1I was just hoping to see some samples really...
    • dadioflex, on 12/23/2007, -1/+1"It didn't work with alcohol, it's not working with drugs, it won't work with video games and movies. "

      Damn right. Look at how little kids are currently allowed to buy alcohol and drugs but don't. Why can't the government see that allowing children to make their own decisions will never end badly. If we stop allowing pre-teens to self-regulate who's supposed to watch over them? Their parents??
  • eldoctor86, on 12/22/2007, -29/+22Hillary's ideas are laughable, i'd rather have my kids learn sex from a simulated source than some terrible source provided by outdated teaching plans by public schools. The sex ed i got in school in the past 5 years suxs...
    • DocHoliday22, on 12/22/2007, -1/+11From a simulated source? Are you sure you're going to be fit to have children? The way it's always worked was school gave us a foundation level introduction to sex, we filled in all the missing parts through friends, TV,porn and magz.... It's been working so far.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/22/2007, -2/+7Yeah, 2 Spears daughter's and Paris Hilton can't be wrong.......
        • AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1*****, I screwed up the apostrophe :*(
      • GMorgan, on 12/22/2007, -0/+10I thought everyone filled it in via scientific method.
    • Mononuclear, on 12/22/2007, -1/+15Try talking to your kids instead.. I don't want my kids learning about sex from porn. Porn is not even close to real sex in most cases. I don't want my kids learning about sex from computer games. However I can teach my own kids about sex.
      • Firgof, on 12/23/2007, -1/+6That was my parent's opinion, actually. I resent them to this day for thinking that I could not tell the difference between acting and reality. I was an actor from eight until I turned sixteen; I know theatrics. That said, my parents didn't even really know what to say about sex other than the rube necessities (Plug A into Slot A). I understood if from a physical standpoint due to longstanding experience with computers, from an emotional point due to a lot of exposure to erotica, games, and the internet (not the best place to learn these things if you've not got a level head).

        Besides, even the actors in porn -do- feel the pleasure. It is not as if they're sticking an anesthetic in their arm before every scene. Porn is about the physical side of sex and that's what it always will be; experimental film and audio non withstanding.

        I think I taught myself about sex in a very well-to-do manner. My school attempted to tell me that condoms "have a 76% fail rate" and also "statutory rape is a valid crime, even if you're 15 and she's 15". At the age of 22 now I can say that scare tactics, physical beatings, religious propaganda, misinformation, blatant fear-inspired lies, and 'covering-their-eyes-and-ears'-ism is not how you teach a child about sex. It is one of the ways you -could- and indeed are -entitled- to teach your child as such, but be warned that you'll either have someone getting women pregnant at the age of 12 or someone level-headed and fair.

        I learned everything I know about sex from the Internet, computer games, and other kids. So take heed in the raising of your kids--if your kid is smart enough to learn about it on his own, he's smart enough for you to teach him anything you know and trust him enough for him to come to you should he have questions. Treat your kid like an idiot who's going to get addicted on crack is a surefire way to breed dissent and resentment; not to mention a large chip on their shoulder.
      • BearinG, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1What about BJs ? Are you going to teach your daughter how to perform them?

        I'd rather not mention it, if she tries once herself and fails maybe she'll be discouraged from doing it for life.
    • KingBabi, on 12/22/2007, -4/+9Digg me down, duplicate comment.
    • jkizzle, on 12/22/2007, -3/+2if you are still getting sex ed an have kids, you have some issues of your own to deal with...

      i got sex ed in the 4th grade.
    • holygram, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3Apparently the english classes sucked, as well.
  • iching, on 12/22/2007, -1/+80I thought the photo tag was funny for sex ed.

    To win, players must maintain a steady rhythm with the left analog stick to build up an "excitement meter" on the right of the screen. Fill the meter and Denise becomes very excited, telling CJ he is "the man" before the game congratulates you with the words "Nice guys finish last!" Let the meter drop to empty and the game admonishes you with "Failure to satisfy a woman is a CRIME!"

    Given that the minigame is about as raunchy as an episode of Sex and the City, cannot be accessed without entering a long string of cheat codes, and takes several hours of effort to access, charges that San Andreas is "pornographic" may seem extreme to some. However, its existence does appear to contradict Rockstar Games' carefully worded statement blaming hacker mischief for the existence
    • gamerzworld, on 12/22/2007, -2/+14You have to edit the game's files. It's not a cheat code. You where sounding like the main stream media for a second.
    • jmccgod, on 12/23/2007, -1/+2...when the deactivated love scene was found buried...
      Wow. Sounds like thats what the whole game was about...
      • smurfsahoy, on 12/23/2007, -1/+1No, it's about shooting unarmed civilians and running guns.
  • Czechxican, on 12/22/2007, -1/+216Dugg for "17 to 18 years old -- a crucial year in which a teen develops the necessary psychological defenses to resist the Siren song of polygon porn."
    • oxdeltaxo, on 12/22/2007, -0/+28The problem is the AO rating. What difference does one year make? All the AO-rating does is provide politicians the ability to morally police video games if they don't like them. The AO rating is was made for Specifically sexual content, not a normal video game with a side of sex. Thats like rating a normal movie x if theres a sex scene in it. It's kinda retarded.

      Tight ass politicians need to re-evaluate their *****.
    • r0b0, on 12/22/2007, -0/+16In my opinion, the difference between AO and M isn't the one year older you need to buy it, its the availability. It is much harder to find an AO game, as most stores do not stock them, so thats why most developers try to keep it M or lower.
    • BlGBOSS, on 12/22/2007, -0/+33http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=ti ...

      So I was sitting around the other day, playing "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas," when suddenly I received an email with an attachment called "hot coffee mod." So I did what I always do when I get programs from strangers in my email: I ran it.

      Then I went back to playing the game and didn't notice anything different, except for when I took my in-game girlfriend back home, she now asks "how about a little coffee?" Naturally I got excited, because I was expecting to see a scene with the protagonist, Carl, and his girlfriend, Denise, sipping a tall cup of joe and discussing the finer points of globalization and how cultural distinction will shape future generations. Instead, I was shocked to learn that Denise wasn't talking about a delicious beverage made from roasted beans, but what she was really talking about was SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.

      I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I thought there was some mistake, this couldn't be the family-friendly carjacking game I thought I knew. Maybe Denise changed into an outfit that just happened to look like the bust of a naked woman. I watched the scene over and over again, carefully analyzing every pixel, but the conclusion was inescapable: Denise was in fact nude. Or at least had a skin colored texture applied to the surface area primitive of her character's model.

      The creator of the game, Rockstar Games, has stated that it will offer a downloadable patch to fix the sex issue in the PC versions, and is working on a new version of the game that will prevent this content from being unlocked in the future.

      Thank God. I'll be the first person to download and patch my PC version of "Grand Theft Auto." I want to shoot people in the face, bang prostitutes, traffic drugs, steal cars, and terrorize police officers without this filthy smut in my game. Frankly, I'm appalled that Rockstar would allow such wholesale corruption of our youth. Years from now when America has become a withered husk of the morality it once stood for, historians will look back at what triggered it all and point to one event: a boolean variable that unlocked a simulated sex scene in a video game.

      The game is now being taken off the shelves all over the country and re-labeled with an "AO" rating. This is much stricter than the "M" rating the game originally received. According to the ESRB website:


      Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons of age 17 and older.
      As opposed to the stricter AO rating:


      Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older.


      What pisses me off more than anything is that I paid for a game rated for 17 year olds, or possibly 17 and 1/2 year olds, tops. What I got was a game rated for 18 year olds instead.

      I think it's only fitting for Rockstar Games to go out of business, and all the programmers lose their jobs over this. God bless Hillary Clinton for allocating tax money to have federal regulators investigate "the source of this content," because if she hadn't, consumers might have to go through the trouble of reading the label on the cover of the box.
    • ellecon, on 12/22/2007, -0/+12Not even porn, but "clothed characters simulating sex acts". Worrying about simulated dry-humping in a game that centers around simulated felonies, including mass-murder, is insane.

      Heaven forbid some impressionable & disaffected youth should see cartoon characters pretending to have clothed sex. It could spark a wave of "making out" in high schools across the land.

      Priorities are skewed when sex is considered worse than murder (or injustice,hypocrisy,greed,etc...).

      The penis is not mightier than the sword or the pen or much else. So what if a teenager sees boobs or genitals or sex? It doesn't have the power to change who they are or turn them into miscreants. They're probably thinking about sex anyways, believe it or not....

  • TornACL, on 12/22/2007, -16/+5How are the nerds going to get relief?
    • thomtomw, on 12/22/2007, -3/+6from the thousands of porn websites out there, or have things changed.
  • tanstaafl420, on 12/22/2007, -1/+177Meh, this just shows how skewed her priorities are... I mean government regulating video game sex is so far down on the list of things to give a crap about its laughable.. not that I believe she actually cares about the subject, once again its just a politician windsock swinging with the prevailing winds.
    • jcaino, on 12/22/2007, -0/+10yea...i mean, fake cartoon sex is immoral, right? i mean...she should know all about that...
      • RpgActioN, on 12/22/2007, -3/+9Fear the rise of the Christian Left.
        • Tilon, on 12/23/2007, -0/+8God, it's not the cartoon porn that's the issue here. They're using something most people hate as a ***** stepping stone to legitimize their censorship more.
      • edwartica, on 12/23/2007, -1/+2I think I met Bill Clinton on Second life the other day! He was dressed in fishnet stockings, bra, and panties - on a male avatar.
    • drakethegreat, on 12/22/2007, -0/+17Isn't it obvious the only reason she pretends to care is because she feels she might loose based on her husband and their lack of commitment to families. She does all this ***** just to make it look like shes a good mom. Its a ***** joke because then we all suffer.
      • geartype2, on 12/22/2007, -1/+6Thank you for pointing out something so obvious that others apparently did not grasp. You have the right idea.
      • Tilon, on 12/23/2007, -0/+6No, she's doing it because she's a professional politician and a professional panderer.

        It's nothing as simple as 'she wants to look like a mom'. She has a whole team of people whose JOBS are Public Relations to analyze her every damned move.
  • Rooker156, on 12/22/2007, -38/+155Ron Paul would never do anything like this.
    • somunny, on 12/22/2007, -37/+12Of course not. He's too busy watching it.
    • freff, on 12/22/2007, -6/+72Thank God. I thought I was going have to go a whole thread without knowledge of what Ron Paul would do.
      • jcaino, on 12/22/2007, -8/+1Seriously. Chuck is gonna be so pissed when he finds this out.
    • MasterInsan0, on 12/22/2007, -12/+3Nope, Ron Paul most certainly would not do anything like this. He would, however, let his campaign committee commission people to post positive things about him on Digg.
      • b3mus3d, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5Lol, how do you think they got the money in the first place?

        Enthusiastic fans. The kind of people who might post their views on Digg...
      • edwartica, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Ron Paul thinks the state;s should decide whether or not their respected governors should wipe with 1 ply or 2 ply.
    • SteeleyDan, on 12/23/2007, -3/+6I love Ron Paul, but I doubt he's even ever heard of "cartoon sex"
    • Tilon, on 12/23/2007, -2/+5Um, the idea here is that little thing called "Freedom of Speech".

      Ever heard of it, morons?
      • mooboy322, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1that just means we can say ***** about the government and not get sent to jail for it

        read your rights kids ;)
        • tech42er, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1We can say whatever we want, and not get sent to jail for it, though we can get kicked off private property for it.
  • rpi22, on 12/22/2007, -6/+28Thank god for the government!
  • whatthefu, on 12/22/2007, -0/+98Government censorship is not a proper way to keep "morals."
  • felman87, on 12/22/2007, -0/+69I don't want to live in a world without computer generated sex
    • thomtomw, on 12/22/2007, -7/+1but the GTA characters looked......so *****.
    • consonance, on 12/22/2007, -2/+13If computer-generated porn is outlawed, then only the outlaws will have computer-generated porn.
    • MasterInsan0, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Might wanna get that pistol ready then.
      • smurfsahoy, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1To fire off in the air in excitement upon realizing that one can never ban this without toppling the entire internet?
    • tektalk, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1I was gonna digg you, but you were at 69 diggs, so it seems more fitting that way. ;)
  • kaelyiesta, on 12/22/2007, -2/+119Someone should explain to her the role of government in this country. Maybe let her read a little something called the Constitution.
    • kreatre2007, on 12/22/2007, -0/+22She needs to read the 4th Admendment. In it is an implied right of privacy.
      • fantasticFlan, on 12/22/2007, -0/+21Or perhaps the 1st, where there is an expressed right to free speech.
      • carpespasm, on 12/22/2007, -4/+1and it's only implied because the founding fathers knew that as new social structures came about any specific wording would be less than adequate. They didn't have ideas like intellectual property and the ability to quickly freely push information and entertainment around the world with little effort.
    • dondara, on 12/22/2007, -2/+33She's a US senator for pete's sake ...she probably can't read.
    • ColonelJessup, on 12/22/2007, -8/+0Maybe she was reading the "necessary and proper" clause in article one of the Constitution, it really gives Congress A LOT of power.
      • Scheissen, on 12/22/2007, -1/+5No, Congress actually invokes the Commerce Clause to get a lot of things passed.
      • Tilon, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2uh, then the AMENDMENTS AMEND the Constitution (Funny how that works?) To make sure the government knows certain things they cannot abridge under any circumstances.

        FIRST AMENDMENT.
        FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
    • sylvanis, on 12/22/2007, -0/+14I think Ronald Reagan said it best (when discussing the rold of the government and the constitution) "We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. "We the people" are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the people" are free."
      • MasterInsan0, on 12/22/2007, -1/+8Except that because of the modern age, "we the people" have become lazy, fat, and mindless enough to let the government pull our rights out from under us.
        • Tilon, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2Don't kid yourself. They were TAKEN. By design.
  • Abominous, on 12/22/2007, -9/+64She needs a lesson in the constitution just like ***** Bush.
    • SouthsideIrish, on 12/22/2007, -4/+7What candidate running for President doesn't need one? McCain is even more worse than Hillary.
    • ColonelJessup, on 12/22/2007, -6/+0Yet they are the ones in government, while you bitch about it in your mom's basement.................................
    • MasterInsan0, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3The Constitution is meaningless unless one gives it meaning. One gives it meaning by upholding what it says. Are the politicians upholding the Constitution? No. Are we letting the politicians get away with not upholding the Constitution? Yes. Therefore, the Constitution is meaningless.
  • kreatre2007, on 12/22/2007, -3/+83Clinton needs to keep her damned nose out of our computers. Add this to the long list of reasons why she won't get my vote.
  • Dokument, on 12/22/2007, -1/+55NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. keep your ***** hands of my pron Hillary.
  • jen4asot, on 12/22/2007, -1/+27Hillary, Hillary....who's paying you now?
  • Parlay, on 12/22/2007, -2/+27Quick, rule 34 on Clinton!
    Ew...
    • TheChihuahua, on 12/22/2007, -1/+17Don't worry, should Clinton gain office she will almost certainly ban rule 34...
  • over900000, on 12/22/2007, -2/+12i would like to see some computer generated hillary porn. rule #34
    • itsthebrod, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5Actually I think a few years ago I accidentally came across some (fakes obviously) and it was absolutely terrible/horrific (in terms of both craftsmanship of the Photoshopping and the concept).
  • XFi6, on 12/22/2007, -3/+79"When I am President, I will work to protect children from inappropriate video game content," she told CSM.

    I ain't voting for her...
    • SouthsideIrish, on 12/22/2007, -0/+16Oh, it's for the children!
    • virtualme7, on 12/22/2007, -7/+2I could really care less about this. Parents bought the game for the kids anyway so its not making a difference. Not really a hot button issue for me. If THIS is the reason you are not voting for her, you're a moron.
      • BrandonB1218, on 12/23/2007, -1/+0You COULD care less?
      • BodomX, on 12/23/2007, -1/+1Yeah and? Your probably some old hag who gets sexually excited over Bengay.
        • virtualme7, on 12/23/2007, -2/+0you make no sense. good luck making french fries!
      • mickcn, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Your missing the point.
        • virtualme7, on 12/23/2007, -1/+0nope. you missed my point
          • mickcn, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1I got your point. Your just missing the whole picture.
  • thedreamhadm3, on 12/22/2007, -6/+19This is ridiculous. Let's further regulate sex and all exposures (or close exposures) to it, just so kids know even less about it. But bring on the guns! Hey, let them dream about shooting up their neighbors dog who barks incessantly but punish them for having sexy thoughts about their sisters best friend... or their hot classmate. Really, what is the world coming to?
    sex is not bad!!
    I wasn't planning on voting for Hilary, and now I'm really not.
    • MasterInsan0, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2It's because of this lack of exposure to sex but hyper-exposure to violence that we have awkward teens who play Counter-Strike daily, post sprays of women in "spread" positions, and yet have no single clue what anything in that picture actually is or how it works.
  • kushed, on 12/22/2007, -1/+7TOASTY!!!
    • whyufail, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3Sadly, far too few will understand the significance of that, and if she has her way, nobody will.
  • legoalert33, on 12/22/2007, -12/+4Death of 4chan?
  • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/22/2007, -3/+38why is she a democrat again? our two-party system is not simply conservatives vs liberals anymore.
    • SiNN4R, on 12/22/2007, -0/+30I almost dugg you down until I realized I agree with you. You need one account for rational statements and another account for your regular statements.
    • minoss, on 12/22/2007, -1/+14Democrats are the ones who are always trying to do this (since 1994).

      Joe Lieberman, Herb Kohl, Leland Yee, Jennifer Granholm, Hillary Clinton, and Evan Bayh to name a few.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controvers ...
      • Nougat, on 12/22/2007, -2/+2Hillary Clinton is recent. Lieberman left the Dems and no one begged him to come back. The only other one that's even vaguely nationally know is Bayh. I think I may have heard of Granholm once.

        You see where this position on video games gets you? Rejection and obscurity. You can't fault Democrats for burying the doofuses (doofi?) who put this crap forth.
        • minoss, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Hillary Clinton recent? Sure, if by recent you mean over 2 years ago:

          "On 2005-11-29, Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act to much criticism. The act was intended to protect children from inappropriate content found in video games. It has not passed through the Senate. Similar bills introduced at state level were found to be unconstitutional."
          • Nougat, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1I suppose I didn't make my point very clearly. The Democratic party as a whole is not embracing these positions. I am not making excuses for these individuals; it's an idiotic position that they should have to apologize for.

            Just as some Republicans having secret gay sex doesn't make all Republicans secretly gay, neither does this stupid video game censorship make all Democrats censors.
          • minoss, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1No, they're just embracing people who support it as their party nominee for president.
    • Squidly, on 12/23/2007, -1/+6Regulation = Control, and controlling your life is what the Dems are all about.

      You aren't smart enough to do it for yourself, so let the Dems tax the rich, set up a big costly organization to police this stuff for you.

      I hope this is a wake up call. I rather doubt it.
  • delmar14, on 12/22/2007, -8/+56Anyone who votes for this two-faced bitch is a ***** pansy and a retard.
    • samssf, on 12/22/2007, -4/+3rofl, that made my day.
    • xerigen, on 12/22/2007, -3/+11or a "democratic" sheep a.k.a. the people who watch American Idol.
    • JapaneseEconomy, on 12/23/2007, -3/+1Your calling over 40% of women pansies and retards then.
  • nubnub, on 12/22/2007, -1/+16Oh darn, I guess i'll just have to watch real porn.
  • Parandroid4, on 12/22/2007, -1/+90She's just angry because she found Bill wacking it to Super Mario Galaxy.
    • samssf, on 12/22/2007, -1/+11Muahaha
    • jcani, on 12/22/2007, -6/+3There is something in SM Galaxy worth fapping to? Peach pr0n? what the hell?! hahaha
    • MasterInsan0, on 12/22/2007, -3/+1Nah, he was probably whacking it to San Andreas, hence her grudge against it.
  • HouseFan, on 12/22/2007, -4/+23It seems to me that she is trying to gain some sympathy from the Evangelicals.

    • bungoman, on 12/22/2007, -2/+1Duh. Only moralfags care about this.
  • Wren5, on 12/22/2007, -5/+10The Hot Coffee *MOD* was not in the game. It's such song and dance to say that it was "on the disc", even though it sort of was, because that makes it sound like something it totally isn't. You have to go the internet and download additional code to combine with existing code to make it happen. When you hear Hillary talk, it makes it sound like entering the konami code quick before the intros finish will bring up some raunchy sex game.

    From an end-user standpoint, the game is not enabling -- you have this disk in your PS2, so now you have to go d/l something from the internet to see porn. Or you could skip the part about having the disk and PS2.
    • neko, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1"...konami code quick before the intros finish..."

      That... .is the best idea ever.
  • GettinReal, on 12/22/2007, -3/+17I cant post my real feelings about this I would arrested, labeled "enemy combatant", and sent to Cuba. I will say this.....***** that biatch. Kinda of crazy that they would try to censor games while sending young Americans to die over some *****.
    • exomni, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0I highly doubt you'd be labeled an enemy combatant for opposing a democrat.
  • Sharkaac, on 12/22/2007, -18/+44RON PAUL 08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • alex1015, on 12/22/2007, -1/+13Seriously, enough of this nanny state. Get the government out of my life and let me do what I want. I don't recall the constitution mentioning that politicians should regulate things that they personally disagree with.
    • MasterThief117, on 12/23/2007, -10/+4***** you and your RP spam.
  • blackcloud333, on 12/22/2007, -13/+4I don't think I will feel right voting at all when the only choices are Clinton and whatever evil douche puppet the republicans prop up.
    • SouthsideIrish, on 12/22/2007, -4/+5Vote! Please. Vote for the Libertarian, or the Green candidate, or the Socialist. Pick the person of your choice and give them your vote, and show the Republicrats that they no longer have your support.
  • swoopdog, on 12/22/2007, -0/+25how does this help the country again?
    • chan0429, on 12/23/2007, -0/+3It cures cancer!... no wait.
      It secures our borders!... eh
      it takes care of those terrorists... um.
  • jayb1rd, on 12/22/2007, -3/+76Everyone forgets that Hillary Clinton is the reason I have to show my ID to buy a goddamn video game.
    • soot, on 12/22/2007, -20/+5Oh baawwwww, because pulling your wallet out of your pocket is so hard.
      • jcani, on 12/22/2007, -0/+14I think you missed the point! I'm 22 years old and Best Buy asked to see my ID for HALF LIFE EPISODE ONE FFS!!! because their store policy forces employees to card anyone not "looking over the age of 30".
        • FryedFrog, on 12/22/2007, -16/+1Um, who gives a *****? I'm seriously trying to understand what's to be outraged about here, but I can't fathom it. It can't seriously be a convenience thing, because you were probably paying with either money or a credit card from your wallet, and that's probably also where your ID resides. It's almost certainly not a privacy thing, because if you actually think the monkey working the cash register had time to memorize your personal info for some nefarious purpose then you're insane. The only thing I can assume is that the picture on your ID looks really bad, but let me reassure you - by the time they see your ID, they've already been staring at your ugly mug in real life and won't be surprised to see an ugly picture of you.
        • ordig, on 12/22/2007, -0/+9Best Buy can suck it
        • hypershadow147, on 12/22/2007, -6/+3That sounds like a store policy. If you don't like how they sell games, can't you just buy it elsewhere?
    • voyvf, on 12/22/2007, -11/+3i don't mind showing id to buy a game, in much the same way that i don't mind showing id to buy booze. some things kids just shouldn't see, or partake of. and i do mean kids - if you're a teenager, you should be able to either handle it, or know yourself well enough not to buy it. if you can't, you've already failed at life.

      age regulation isn't insane. out and out banning, that's ***** insane.
      • exomni, on 12/22/2007, -2/+2Wouldn't it be amazing if there was some perfect, biologically created, responsible individual endowed with the authority to raise children so that the government didn't have to? Or better yet: a pair of mutually supporting, loving individuals, supported by the government, with the responsibility to raise their children?

        Man, it sure would be nice if there was something like that. But oh well, I guess government micromanagement of every single thing relating to every single person's lives is the only way.
      • jcani, on 12/22/2007, -1/+8it all starts with " i don't mind "
      • bungoman, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Yeah, except we're talking about ***** video games here, not hardcore porn.
    • FryedFrog, on 12/22/2007, -4/+3Is anyone going to explain what's so bad about having to show your ID to purchase something that isn't meant for children? Do you get this upset when you have to show your ID to purchase cigarettes or beer? Or tickets to an R rated movie? Many of you are probably happily showing your student ID to save a buck on that movie ticket anyway, after all.

      And don't forget, if you're paying with anything except for cash, the store will often want to check your ID anyway, to verify that the check you're writing or the credit card you're using truly belongs to you. In short, the store already has good reason to need to verify that you are who you say you are. Briefly showing your ID to the clerk is a quick way for them to accomplish that.

      Now, just like with movies, the game industry has chosen to separate which content they believe is appropriate for minors and which content is not. If you're an adult, then this rating has no effect on you - you can purchase whichever games you want, though a store may require you to verify your age before they consent to sell it to you. If you're a minor, tough luck - either convince a parent to buy it for you, or play something else.

      Anyway, back to the primary question of this post - please, someone, explain what's so terrible about having to spend 5 seconds showing your ID to a clerk at Best Buy before you can walk out of the store with GTA IV.
      • KingMoses, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2"That's the problem with art; there's always the possibility that some ***** will be offended, isn't there?"
    • PickledJesus, on 12/23/2007, -2/+3All the bawwwwwing you're doing about something so simple surely takes more effort and pisses you off more than taking your wallet out of your pocket to buy a game. Unless of course you are underage, then I don't care what you have to say.
    • colberrep, on 12/23/2007, -3/+2aw poor baby has to take out his ID
  • techweenie, on 12/22/2007, -7/+13Riiiight President Huckabee would be soooo much more lenient!
    • completerobot, on 12/22/2007, -1/+5Riiiight there are only two choices that America has!
    • jayb1rd, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3I'm sure Huckabee believes the same things about video games as Clinton does...the thing is, Hillary has made it her "pet project" to protect the nation's precious little snowflakes from video games. I think we have more important things to worry about.
  • 3tcp, on 12/22/2007, -2/+41Yet one more sign that Clinton is tragically out of touch with what is important to normal people in the real world. The government has more important things to do than tell me what kinds of video games I should be playing.

    i shudder to think what she would do if she found out about Leisure Suit Larry
    • Blazekun, on 12/22/2007, -0/+4Or Xenogears. That had sex, nudity, extremely heavy anti-religious themes, and was only rated Teen! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
  • SiNN4R, on 12/22/2007, -1/+24Yesterday I cut myself shaving so I want to thank politicians who protect me from myself.
  • j4200, on 12/22/2007, -0/+28The only factor that is letting children see these MATURE rated games, are those children's parents.
    • ColonelJessup, on 12/22/2007, -2/+3Someone gets it............
    • jcani, on 12/22/2007, -0/+4This is what happens when you let TV raise your child.
    • voyvf, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3Agreed. On the one hand, it seems that instead of making it more difficult to acquire these games, they should make the penalty harsher for parents who don't want to do their job. On the other hand, a parent should be able to make that kind of judgment call about and for their children - some kids have a better grasp of reality than others, are more mature, etc.

      So that makes me wonder exactly when our government stopped assuming that a parent was actually doing their job. I mean, it's a logical assumption. Should we pass laws enforcing when a child has to go to bed, next? Is our nation so incredibly simple that, on the whole, we need our asses wiped for us?

      Leave those who can manage the hell alone. Punish those who fail. It's that simple. No one with a brain wants to live in a safety-net society.

      /Sorry for the rant.
  • Taciturn, on 12/22/2007, -2/+30Hillary Clinton is the enemy of life.
  • TStanNY, on 12/22/2007, -4/+4She said she wants to keep children away from video game sex. This really shouldn't have anything to do with stopping designers from making video game sex. If she is half as smart as I hope she is, this should focus on getting parents involved and leaving my damn video game pr0n alone.
    • minoss, on 12/22/2007, -0/+7hahahahhahahahahah

      I'm assuming that was sarcasm.
    • exomni, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3Look, mommy, it's a moron!
  • DeFex, on 12/22/2007, -3/+72someone should ban her. she is offending me.
  • chuckythe2651, on 12/22/2007, -2/+25Does this surprise anyone? Mrs. Clinton wants to regulate everything. She believes that the government need to protect the people for themselves.
  • jayb1rd, on 12/22/2007, -0/+18There are so many more offensive things in GTA than sex. I mean, I still play it, but I would be more concerned about the whole having sex with hookers and then shooting them in the face thing than some patch they would have to download to the internet that *kind of* shows oral sex. But then again, as a parent I probably wouldn't buy my kids that game. You know, it's called, like, parenting.
    • ColonelJessup, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3Parents are the FRONT LINE in protecting the children from bad things.
  • TherealObadiah, on 12/22/2007, -1/+8Another Clinton "Sister Souljah" moment. Are people really that dense that they can't see through this?
    • nblsavage, on 12/22/2007, -0/+7For most of the people on Digg and the 'net at large I'd say yes they can see through it. Unfortunately we are a drop in the bucket.
  • maiku00, on 12/22/2007, -1/+23oh wow, this is EXACTLY where I want the next president of the United States priorities to be
  • xerigen, on 12/22/2007, -1/+44I already have one mom, thanks anyways Hillary.
    • Myahon, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1this post sums up everything i have against her censorship. If parents don't want their kids buying cop-killer sims. BE A PARENT! It's not the governments responsibility or RIGHT to be our mommies.
  • samssf, on 12/22/2007, -5/+14No way I'm voting for Clinton. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, despite having different views, are the only two candidates who are honest and actually care about real issues, and are actually able to think. Ron Paul 2008, people!
    • DavidGX, on 12/23/2007, -6/+2He (rp) isn't getting the nomination. Get over it already.
  • ashlocke, on 12/22/2007, -1/+24Yeah, this is an awesome waste of taxpayer money. Hilary is a tool.
  • TGMD, on 12/22/2007, -4/+32Fascist and a socialist. What more do you need?
    • itsthebrod, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3Cankles? Nevermind, that's another check.
    • DavidGX, on 12/23/2007, -6/+2Fascist sucks.. buck Socialist? Sounds good.
  • skews13, on 12/22/2007, -3/+5whats bill going to do on saturday nights?
    • sylvanis, on 12/22/2007, -0/+10The interns.
    • UnlikelyHero, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1certainly not hillary, I'm not sure how human penis reacts when its stuck into a robot.
  • irvin666, on 12/22/2007, -1/+18More government control....but to video games? Are you kidding me?!

    Stop being our nanny, Hillary.
  • effect1, on 12/22/2007, -4/+14Finally, someone that's willing to eliminate something that plagues our nation. Sarcasm aside, how does she get so much support?
    • Fl4sh, on 12/23/2007, -0/+5She has so much support because everything is rigged.
      • 3tcp, on 12/23/2007, -0/+3...and if it can't be rigged it can be bought
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 171 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.