Gamertell

Paul Levinson, a published author and professor of communications and media at Fordam University in New York, NY, called out Senator Hillary Clinton for her views on the regulation of videogames.

After reading an article by Bobbie Johnson of The Guardian, a British online e-zine, Levinson said he was reminded of how Sen. Clinton had targeted videogames in previous years along with other politicians and celebrities.

Levinson said 2008 Presidential contender Hillary attacked games in 2005 and during her husband’s presidency by claiming games were detrimental to children.

“No wonder these games are falling into the hands of our children and no wonder so many parents feel everyday like they are fighting this battle with their hands tied behind their backs,” Hillary said. “We need to do better. We need to do everything we can to make sure that parents have a line of defense against violent and graphic video games and other content that go against the values they are trying to instill in their children.”

Levinson, said that Hillary’s presidency will be one of steep fines, forced community service and even jail time for forms of communication clearly protected under the first amendment.

In his blog, Levinson wrote:

“Hillary Clinton is no friend of video gaming. In fact, along with Senators Lieberman, Johnson and Bayh, she proudly introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act in November 2005.

“The Wikipedia entry explains that this law if enacted would have exacted “fines of $1000 dollars or 100 hours of community service for a first time offense of selling a ‘Mature’ or ‘Adult-Only’ rated video game to a minor, and $5000 or 500 hours for each subsequent offense.

“Fortunately, it was not enacted - Congress had more sense than Hillary and her unconstitutionally minded colleagues. Indeed, similar acts in various states had already been struck down as unconstitutional.”

Levinson said everyone wants to protect their children but trampling on the constitution is not the way to do it and using scare tactics in the media - as Jack Thompson has done in the past - is not necessary.

In a 2006 CNBC show called the Squawk Box, Levinston participated in segment titled “Game on or Game over!” originally set up as a point-counterpoint show. After exploiting Thompson’s ability to research and attacking his statistics, the show turned into a verbal fight between Thompson and Levinson.

I remember watching this debate. It was a laughing riot to see Thompson’s credibility damaged. It was almost as funny as the debate between Thompson and G4tv’s Adam Sessler.

Levinson said he was happy that former president Bill Clinton also found Hillary’s law unconstitutional at the time. But, now that Hillary is running for president, Levinson warns gamers that they should beware of further attempts to regulate games.

And he’s right. As videogames have gained popularity, other politicians around the country have made efforts to either outlaw or regulate games they deemed violent. Since 2001, federal judges have rejected these attempts citing the constitution’s protection of free speech. Of course, now many politicians including Sen. Clinton, are trying to convince congress that regulating games is not a violation of the First Amendment but a public health and safety issue.

Christine Anderson, a spokeswoman for Governor Spitzer, said Spitzer was confident that New York’s proposed bill could hold up in court.

“Protecting children from violent and indecent video games is one of the governor’s priorities,” said Christine Anderson, spokeswoman for New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. “He proposed legislation this session to do just that, which differs from other legislation enacted or proposed in other states. This legislation would give a new tool to district attorneys to use that expressly applies to video games.”

Read [Kotaku] Also [New York Times] Also [The Guardian] Site [Infinite Regress]