Mitt: I’ll “go after” retailers who sell violent adult video games

posted at 5:03 pm on December 21, 2007 by Allahpundit

This comes courtesy of HA’s resident IT czar, Mark Jaquith, whose inner libertarian shivers at the prospect of it. Mine too. We’ve been binging on Huck’s nanny statism for weeks now, but with Mitt emerging as the viable alternative it pays to remind ourselves of the lengths to which he’s willing to go to clean up the “cesspool” that is America.

I want to restore values so children are protected from a societal cesspool of filth, pornography, violence, sex, and perversion. I’ve proposed that we enforce our obscenity laws again and that we get serious against those retailers that sell adult video games that are filled with violence and that we go after those retailers.

As Mark says, follow the link and compare his answer to Bill Richardson’s or Obama’s. They want to educate parents, presumably through a ratings system; Mitt wants to start locking people up. Obscenity laws are notoriously fraught with First Amendment problems since it’s hard to write one that doesn’t accidentally (or intentionally) go too far and end up prohibiting forms of protected speech. Because they’re so ripe for abuse, they rarely withstand constitutional challenge and thus the government’s basically given up on using them to prosecute people. Mitt’s promise to social cons is that all that’s going to change, with the obvious goal being to intimidate retailers into not carrying violent games in the first place lest they risk prosecution.

The good news is any law would probably be struck down. And even if it isn’t, this is Mitt we’re talking about. He’ll probably just change his mind later.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The good news is any law would probably be struck down. And even if it isn’t, this is Mitt we’re talking about. He’ll probably just change his mind later.

That’s so money.

omnipotent on December 21, 2007 at 5:05 PM

He can say it, push it, and then we’ll see the laws over-turned, but really this is about the short term, and it’s about undermining Huckabee’s support. Not a bad play for what it’s worth.

Vizzini on December 21, 2007 at 5:06 PM

oh great, another Tipper Gore in drag.

Sammy316 on December 21, 2007 at 5:07 PM

I’m not sure this statement was issued recently. That commercial I linked was done in July. It’s not a Huck thing.

Allahpundit on December 21, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Seems like grasping, as if panicked by Huckabee. No need for this at all.

Nyog_of_the_Bog on December 21, 2007 at 5:09 PM

Because we know the greatest threat to America right now is EA Games.

And Im not kidding people ! hrh

William Amos on December 21, 2007 at 5:09 PM

Tipper Gore II. Can the government enforce social change anyway? Don’t know.

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 5:09 PM

Dude. Dont even mess with my games. I love to blow away virtual Nazis and terrorists. Lay off.

Dash on December 21, 2007 at 5:09 PM

Now that Huck is done, where will the social cons go? Right on over to Mitt (where all conservatives should be).

davenp35 on December 21, 2007 at 5:09 PM

Screw you Nanny Stater! From my cold dead hands!

Bad Candy on December 21, 2007 at 5:12 PM

Sorry Mitt, you just lost my vote big time!

Vote for Fred! and/or Mitt.

FloatingRock on December 21, 2007 at 5:13 PM

You know who else is for censorship of video games?

Hillary.

askheaves on December 21, 2007 at 5:13 PM

I’m covering my ears and still supporting you Mitt, but you’ll get my grand theft auto when you pry it from my cold dead hands…

Medicated on December 21, 2007 at 5:15 PM

dammit Bad Candy, you beat me

Medicated on December 21, 2007 at 5:15 PM

This is EXACTLY why I do not want a radical conservative or liberal in Washington. Communities should enforce their own morals within their communities. We don’t need Washington DC enforcing some particular moral standard from DC across the land. What is right for Tulsa probably isn’t what is right for Salt Lake and we don’t need either one forcing their standards down the other’s throat.

I don’t want a president who is going to “go after” retailers of anything that is sold to ADULTS. Because ADULTS are smart enough to make their own decisions. Washington DC in general or Mitt Romney in particular has no right to tell me what I can and can not buy.

crosspatch on December 21, 2007 at 5:15 PM

I’m surprised Huckaschmuck isn’t out there telling us his soul won’t allow these games to exist…

Frozen Tex on December 21, 2007 at 5:16 PM

heh……if you have seen that ad once the next time you are flipping channels. Nothing to write home to mom about.

Growing up The Wheat Field, Little Big Horn, and Normandy were in my back yard. To this day I haven’t kilt no Yankees, Indians, or Germans.

Limerick on December 21, 2007 at 5:17 PM

Gah, between this and some of his odd 2nd amendment statements, it’s like he’s trying to alienate us.

By “us” I mean Freedom-loving Americans that enjoy violent video games and recreational use of firearms.

Yay MITT, keep digging.

Kai on December 21, 2007 at 5:17 PM

“What is right for Tulsa probably isn’t what is right for Salt Lake”

Interesting, ment what is right for LA probably isn’t what is right for Salt Lake. Anyway, I don’t want Romnuts telling me what video games are too naughty for me to play.

crosspatch on December 21, 2007 at 5:18 PM

This comes courtesy of HA’s resident IT czar, Mark Jaquith, whose inner libertarian shivers at the prospect of it. Mine too. We’ve been binging on Huck’s nanny statism for weeks now, but with Mitt emerging as the viable alternative it pays to remind ourselves of the lengths to which he’s willing to go to clean up the “cesspool” that is America.

This may be just something he says during the primaries before he moves Left during the general.

bnelson44 on December 21, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Dude.

Why tackle videos games? Aren’t we as a country focusing on getting parents involved with their kids vs. using the state a hedge against immorality? I do not need censorship I know how to say “you’ll play that video game when h-e-double hockysticks freezes over.”

Theworldisnotenough on December 21, 2007 at 5:19 PM

Correction:

Sorry Screw you Mitt, you just lost my vote big time!

Vote for Fred! and/or Mitt.

FloatingRock on December 21, 2007 at 5:13 PM

FloatingRock on December 21, 2007 at 5:19 PM

Jeez Louise ~ enforce the immigration laws frickin’ rating system already on the books box when you sell the thing, numbnuts.

tree hugging sister on December 21, 2007 at 5:19 PM

Seriously, between this, Romneycare(AKA, Framework to be usurped for Socialist Medicine), his Nanny Stating on the Second Amendment, all of his expedient flip-flops and whatever else you wanna throw in, I can’t support the guy…

Bad Candy on December 21, 2007 at 5:22 PM

Allah

You’re showing a little bias with your old/blown out of perportion anti-Mitt stories. Trying to make up for the good news for him yesterday? The Fredhead trolls don’t need any more red meat.

davenp35 on December 21, 2007 at 5:22 PM

Hands off my Grand Theft Auto ((`-’))
Platitudes. How do you define what’s obscene and where does it end?
Where are the parents? That’s the real question.

Kini on December 21, 2007 at 5:23 PM

Ah, video games. The popular foil when it comes to identifying the culprit corrupting our youth. I’m so tired of this. All we need is the ESRB (which works!) and parents who don’t want to entrust the raising of their kids to the government. But these absentee parents who can’t keep track of what their children are watching, listening to or playing want the government to make sure they don’t get their hands on any bad video games.

Whatever. The ESRB works and it’s very fair when it comes to evaluating and rating games. Hell, it kept Manhunt 2 off the shelves until its producers drastically pared down the violence and carnage in it. But parents don’t want to assume accountability for the media their kids are allowed to consume, so they want a ban on anything that could be potentially harmful.

And don’t get me started on the whole “video games create killers” mantra trumpeted by the media and several prominent politicians. After the VT shooting spree, everyone was so crushed to learn that Cho wasn’t an avid gamer who spent night after night playing Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. Guess what – maybe these people are screwed up long before they play their first video game. I’ve been playing games all my life and I’m not a mass murderer. And I have responsible parents who shielded me from games like GTA until I was old enough to play them.

In short, this is really lame.

World B. Free on December 21, 2007 at 5:23 PM

davenp35 on December 21, 2007 at 5:22 PM

Awwww…

Bad Candy on December 21, 2007 at 5:23 PM

Fred says: Yeah? Well I will go after people that are actually trying to blow up Americans.

And people that are illegally here bilking our country out of billions in education and health care cost and lowering our standard of living by depressing wages.

TheSitRep on December 21, 2007 at 5:23 PM

Seriously, between this, Romneycare(AKA, Framework to be usurped for Socialist Medicine), his Nanny Stating on the Second Amendment, all of his expedient flip-flops and whatever else you wanna throw in, I can’t support the guy…

SECOND LOOK AT HILLARY!

You’re showing a little bias with your old/blown out of perportion anti-Mitt stories. Trying to make up for the good news for him yesterday?

Ah, so I’m back to being a Mitt-hater after being a Fred-hater about three hours ago, huh?

Allahpundit on December 21, 2007 at 5:24 PM

The RINO always shows through the thin veneer of conservative they trowel on come election time.

Buzzy on December 21, 2007 at 5:25 PM

I’m not sure this statement was issued recently. That commercial I linked was done in July. It’s not a Huck thing.

Allahpundit on December 21, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Yeah, July 15th. Back when Huck was still in single digits.

amerpundit on December 21, 2007 at 5:27 PM

Oh, and it’s also consistently amazing to me how Hollywood continues to get a free pass while video games are the absolute anti-Christ in this scenario. Really? Look at the stuff Hollywood is churning out these days – which looks a heck of a lot more realistic to a kid than a video game does. Why do they get a free pass?

Movies have a rating system just like video games do, and employees who refuse to admit children to R-rated movies just like game stores don’t let kids buy M-rated games. But I’ve been in EB Games countless times and watched mothers unwittingly buy their little kids something they shouldn’t have, and I’ve been to countless R-rated movies where parents bring their way-too-young children to the shows. Where’s the responsibility here?

But nobody’s attacking Hollywood for making the “filth” they’re making….

World B. Free on December 21, 2007 at 5:27 PM

Mormons cant wait to get their hands on your childrens Wiis.

At least thats what i heard anyway.

/Huck

amish on December 21, 2007 at 5:27 PM

Ah, so I’m back to being a Mitt-hater after being a Fred-hater about three hours ago, huh?

Allahpundit on December 21, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Don’t forget you unfair, unbased attacks on Huckabee.

amerpundit on December 21, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Ah, so I’m back to being a Mitt-hater after being a Fred-hater about three hours ago, huh?

Allahpundit on December 21, 2007 at 5:24 PM

I think they want you to be Allah things to Allah people.

(Ooh, I just made myself cringe…)

Frozen Tex on December 21, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Well I sure am glad that our country is in such great shape that Mitt thinks the federal government has nothing better to do than prosecute retailers for selling violent video games.

Clearly this is a legitimate role of the federal government, just like banning certain rifles because they look mean; it’s all there in the 39th Amendment.

Prosecuting retailers, banning guns, subsidizing corn farmers, corporate welfare for the auto industry, health care, education… is there anything the federal government can’t or shouldn’t do according to Mitt?

If only there was a firm believer in Federalist principles in the race; one who’d leave such matters to the states instead of wanting the feds to handle every little issue in order to best pander to voters.

Hollowpoint on December 21, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Ah, so I’m back to being a Mitt-hater after being a Fred-hater about three hours ago, huh?

Allahpundit on December 21, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Heh just admit it Allah the candidate’s fans are enough to make you hate every candidate.

William Amos on December 21, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Christ! First my ar-15 and now he wants to take my violent video games away…these nanny state guys just suck.

liberrocky on December 21, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Who cares about the kids. Why can’t an adult have ADULT entertainment. I dont care about the children. Screw the children. I WANT FUN GAMES, I WANT VIOLENT MOVIES.

muyoso on December 21, 2007 at 5:29 PM

I said it before, and I’ll say it again, Mitt is the candidate of the surburbanite and soccer mom. He’s got all the sensibilities of the suburbanite, not a strong war on terror guy, definitely pro-business, and has a suburbanite sensibility with liberties.

Seriously, gun bans, demonizing video game developers? This is the kind of crap that appeals to spastic suburban housefraus sent into panics by breathless alarmist media telling them their precious little snowflake is gonna get mowed down by the weirdo goth kid at the school. Its complete and utter demagoguery.

Bad Candy on December 21, 2007 at 5:32 PM

perportion

That is a great error! The word proportion would probably make a lot of sense if it were spelled that way. Think about it per-portion. That’s a quick-and-dirty minimalist definition of proportions, right? Ya smell me?

Save the emo retorts. Yes, I will admit that people (like me) who even take time to point out others’ spelling errors tragedies can be a**holes sometimes…like right now.

The Race Card on December 21, 2007 at 5:33 PM

muyoso on December 21, 2007 at 5:29 PM

Is Jr. High out already?

Buzzy on December 21, 2007 at 5:34 PM

You’re showing a little bias with your old/blown out of perportion anti-Mitt stories. Trying to make up for the good news for him yesterday? The Fredhead trolls don’t need any more red meat.

davenp35 on December 21, 2007 at 5:22 PM

Says the one who copies and pastes the same exact pro-Romney comments at multiple blogs, on topic or not.

Hollowpoint on December 21, 2007 at 5:34 PM

The Fredhead trolls don’t need any more red meat.

Well, I am a Fredhead, but I’ve never thought of myself as a troll.

What Mitt says doesn’t concern me at all. It simply reinforces my original take on him, that’s all.

I have nothing against the man, but I don’t think he would be a good Republican candidate. I wish him the best, but not as POTUS.

(Note the difference in tone between my comments on Mitt and the anti-Fred screechers on Fred.)

wccawa on December 21, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Who needs nanny-state control freak Democrats when you have nanny-state control freak Republicans.

Why won’t politicians JUST LEAVE ME THE HECK ALONE!!!! It’s not a danger to anyone for me to sit in my own house eating Cheetos while playing Halo 3 and admiring my AK47 sitting in the corner under the light of incandescent light bulbs!!!

mojojojo on December 21, 2007 at 5:35 PM

Mojojojo
No kidding. I want to be left alone to play Halo and watch DeathProof at the age of 24 and not have hte government tell me its not good for me.

Defector01 on December 21, 2007 at 5:36 PM

SECOND LOOK AT HILLARY!

Allahpundit on December 21, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Heh.

Bad Candy on December 21, 2007 at 5:37 PM

@ Buzzy on December 21, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Funny. I guess its just that I don’t understand why the religious types always want to take away anything that is fun. “Dirty” radio, tv with “swear words” in it, games with a little violence, etc. What ever happened to being a parent, protecting your kid from the stuff instead of using the government to protect them, and just NOT BUY/WATCH/LISTEN to things you find offensive? I don’t listen to Air America cause I know it will piss me off. I don’t listen to “black” radio stations, cause I am sick of them advocating the death of whitey, etc.

muyoso on December 21, 2007 at 5:38 PM

But these absentee parents who can’t keep track of what their children are watching, listening to or playing want the government to make sure they don’t get their hands on any bad video games.

This is basically the source for every social ill, but no politician will address it because absentee parents are a significant voting bloc.

That being said, I wish all the candidates would just shut up for a few days at least so we could have a little time to feel comfortable in supporting them before they make the next stupid comment.

Nosferightu on December 21, 2007 at 5:38 PM

I think the last CompUSA left standing is closing…

benrand on December 21, 2007 at 5:39 PM

Some good advice for Mitt and Huck here.

Likewise, I think there’s a lot of sentiment in favor of people being able to practice their religion, and talk about their religion, without discrimination or ridicule. And I think there’s some support (though less so) for efforts to inform legislation with religious values. There’s also a commonsense attitude toward de minimis expressions of religion: Americans are not, for the most part, offended by references to God, or by things like prayers at football games.

But Americans really don’t like busybodies telling them what to do. The decline of the Left as a political force in America coincided precisely with its shift from a politics of individual freedom to that of tut-tutting politically-correct nanny-statism. I suspect that if the religious Right decides to emulate the Left in this regard, its influence will evaporate in similar fashion.

Religious, yes. But not too much.

bnelson44 on December 21, 2007 at 5:39 PM

I think the last CompUSA left standing is closing…

benrand on December 21, 2007 at 5:39 PM

Best Buy annihilated them.

bnelson44 on December 21, 2007 at 5:39 PM

He is who I thought we was! Now if you wanna crown him, then crown his ass! But Mitt is who I thought he was!!!!

RW Wacko on December 21, 2007 at 5:40 PM

EduardoOTI on December 21, 2007 at 5:41 PM

EduardoOTI on December 21, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Well said.

amerpundit on December 21, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Tipper Gore II. Can the government enforce social change anyway? Don’t know.

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 5:09 PM

Sure. Any smokers here? Motorcycle riders? Owners of cars with seat belts? Are those changes beneficial in the long run? Sure. But to answer your question, government can force social changes using enforcement procedures. I’m probably in the minority here, but I would rank the positive societal value of violent video games right up there with strip clubs and smoking. Donning flame proof suit.

a capella on December 21, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Uh Oh! He keeps stepping on his…Duck!

ronsfi on December 21, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Man, I give up. I kind of settled on Mitt, but now I’ve decided to commit to no one up until my state votes (FL). Seeing Mitt quote the dictionary made we wanna puke. We need to face reality, though. Whoever we get is gonna be a flawed candidate, and most likely not a great president. Passable, probably; good, possibly, but great? I can’t see greatness coming out of anyone in this group.

RW Wacko on December 21, 2007 at 5:44 PM

It must be the holidays cooties or something…..glad this site isn’t just holding up each candidate and pointing out how cute he/she is. Have a beer, chill. We all get our noses tweaked around here. Good. Wouldn’t want it any other way.

Points are highlighted, responses are expected. I don’t know about you guys, but to me, watching a marching band is about as boring as it gets.

Limerick on December 21, 2007 at 5:44 PM

I think the last CompUSA left standing is closing…

benrand on December 21, 2007 at 5:39 PM

Pfft. About three years back I was in the market for a motherboard.

Selection:
Micro Center: At least 60.
Fry’s: At least 50.
CompUSA: Four.

Yes, “The computer superstore” (in their own words) had the giant selection of FOUR motherboards to choose from. None of the were socket A (like I needed) either. They had lots of cell phones and video games though–just like the Circuit City next door. Needless to say, I didn’t buy from CompUSA.

mojojojo on December 21, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Maybe we should have a rating system on blogs too?

terryannonline on December 21, 2007 at 5:50 PM

RW Wacko on December 21, 2007 at 5:44 PM

That’s been my point all along on trying to tone down the anti-Huckabee rhetoric.

A) I said many times there’s almost no substantive difference between Huckabee and Mitt. They have the same flaws and are essentially opposite sides of the same coin.

B) There’s no perfect candidate. Ronald Reagan has been lifted up to inhuman heights recently but he too was flawed. He’s still considered a great President because often times with Presidents it’s their character that defines them not often a specific stand on a single issue.

bj1126 on December 21, 2007 at 5:51 PM

a capella on December 21, 2007 at 5:42 PM

I don’t really care if you think video games are worthless and not a positive thing for society, as long as you don’t try and use government to legislate morality like Mitt. If we start Nannying one vice or “vice”, we’ll end up banning all of them, and life won’t be worth living.

Bad Candy on December 21, 2007 at 5:51 PM

Maybe we should have a rating system on blogs too?

terryannonline on December 21, 2007 at 5:50 PM

you mean like a… Fairness doctrine?

Frozen Tex on December 21, 2007 at 5:53 PM

If anybody messes with my future copy of Grand Theft Auto 4, I’ll get medevial.

steveegg on December 21, 2007 at 5:53 PM

bj1126 on December 21, 2007 at 5:51 PM

I agree, Reagan has been far too deified by conservatives, I’m not a Reagan conservative, I’m just a conservative. Admittedly, I’m too young to remember Reagan’s presidency, so that could be why I don’t have the strong sentimental attachment some do.

Bad Candy on December 21, 2007 at 5:54 PM

Frozen Tex on December 21, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Yes, it would be for the children and also equality.

terryannonline on December 21, 2007 at 5:54 PM

Wow. I was considering Mitt as a last minute alternative. Gun grabber? Eh, fine. Health care pimp? I’ll overlook it.

…but the minute he touches my PC gaming, he’s crossed the line.

MadisonConservative on December 21, 2007 at 5:54 PM

SECOND LOOK AT HILLARY!

Allahpundit on December 21, 2007 at 5:24 PM

I could’ve swore Hillary wanted to ban Command and Conquer 3 too.

steveegg on December 21, 2007 at 5:55 PM

Whaaaa?….I am off to play COD4.

EnochCain on December 21, 2007 at 5:56 PM

Damn it. Who the hell am I going to vote for, now? If Mitt wants to take away my Grand Theft Auto, that’s a deal breaker!

krabbas on December 21, 2007 at 5:57 PM

MadisonConservative on December 21, 2007 at 5:54 PM

I know, but for me, but this is kinda three strikes on stated policy, he had Romneycare, anti-Gun Nanny, and the last straw in this bit of Morality Police Nanny Stating. Adios Mitt. Viva Fred!

Bad Candy on December 21, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Frankly, I can’t imagine playing a video game that doesn’t contain gratuitous violence. There’s no accounting for taste obviously, but I just don’t get RPGs or sports games. RPGs bore me, and I can play sports in real life.

On the other hand, I can’t stab a dude in the throat with a ball point pen Manhunt 2 style in real life. And Mitt wants to take away my outlet for enacting simulated murders? Then I’ll actually have to kill people.

Why is Mitt Romney trying to turn me into a homicidal maniac?

Enrique on December 21, 2007 at 6:04 PM

Me at 18: out getting in the kinds of trouble available to kids in the late 70s.

My son at 18: sitting on the couch with his friends playing Halo instead of out vandalising property or drinking and getting some girl pregnant.

Video games are destroying my family’s traditions!

Bad Penny on December 21, 2007 at 6:07 PM

I don’t really care if you think video games are worthless and not a positive thing for society, as long as you don’t try and use government to legislate morality like Mitt. If we start Nannying one vice or “vice”, we’ll end up banning all of them, and life won’t be worth living.

Bad Candy on December 21, 2007 at 5:51 PM

Yeah, but see I’m a smoker, and my vice is being taxed and regulated into non-existence, with the proceeds being used for the benefit of others. It’s probably a good thing. Would the vice of illegal drug usage also fall into that Nanny state category, or does it just include activities that are presently legal? Prostitution(most places)? Man-boy love? Those are social issues and are enjoyed by many. Isn’t the issue really that the government should not have the power to make any vices illegal? And, I’ve already heard all the arguments about “as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.”

a capella on December 21, 2007 at 6:09 PM

@ a capella on December 21, 2007 at 6:09 PM

As long as it doesnt harm anyone other than yourself, it should be legal. The government should have to go through a constitutional amendmend JUST LIKE they did for alcohol if they want to ban these things. Like most modern US government, they just step around the constitution and do things the easy illegal way.

muyoso on December 21, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Rudy thinks video games are fine… unless they have images of the crucifix covered in urine and dung.

tommylotto on December 21, 2007 at 6:15 PM

adult video games

//searching Ebay for a copy of Leisure Suit Larry to send to campaign headquarters

Laura on December 21, 2007 at 6:19 PM

As long as it doesnt harm anyone other than yourself, it should be legal. The government should have to go through a constitutional amendmend JUST LIKE they did for alcohol if they want to ban these things. Like most modern US government, they just step around the constitution and do things the easy illegal way.

muyoso on December 21, 2007 at 6:11

PM
So, all drugs, child porn, how to make a bomb kits, etc. should just be off the counter in the local drugstore? NAMBLA claims child porn is victimless and good for children. How would you prove otherwise? Vices are many and varied. Constitutional amendments for all of them? Or gentle government nudging towards better behavior as with tobacco?

a capella on December 21, 2007 at 6:23 PM

a capella on December 21, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Yeah, but see I’m a smoker, and my vice is being taxed and regulated into non-existence, with the proceeds being used for the benefit of others. It’s probably a good thing.

No, its probably a bad thing, because it gets people comfortable with Nanny Stating, if you can impose your will on smokers, you can impose your will on SUV and motorcycle drivers, then “assault weapons”, then certain forms of speech, then alcohol, then more types of speech, and hunting rifles, then you become voiceless and toothless, don’t believe that, look at the Nanny State paradise that Britain is becoming. That’s our future if we allow ourselves to go that path. I’m not going down that path, not without a fight.

As for your examples, I’d say they’re grey areas and I’d leave it to local or states to decide, your last example is a strawman, children can’t consent.

Bad Candy on December 21, 2007 at 6:26 PM

//searching Ebay for a copy of Leisure Suit Larry to send to campaign headquarters

Laura on December 21, 2007 at 6:19 PM

ROFL, though I don’t think that’s the kind of adult video game Mitt has on his ban-’em list.

steveegg on December 21, 2007 at 6:37 PM

Where does it say that Mitt wants to “lock people up”?

It may be a good time to revisit history, where after what can correctly be called an hysterical reaction from the music biz to Tipper Gore’s PMRC was able to get the music business to voluntarily put warning labels on music. Is that censorship or reasonable stewardship?

Originally, the PMRC proposed that record companies rate records “V” for violence, “X” for sex, “D/A” for drugs and alcohol and “O” for occult. However, by the time of the hearing, Tipper Gore testified that the PMRC was no longer interested in a rating system but wanted record companies to voluntarily label offensive albums.

Complying with the PMRC, all of the major label record companies embraced the new labeling system.

Out of 7,500 albums released between 1986 and 1989, 49 displayed some type of warning message. By 1990, the black-and-white “Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics” label had become the industry standard.

While the idea of holding the retailers responsible is unworkable (are they supposed to listen or view every item they sell?) holding retailers responsible for selling to minors is reasonable (just one cannot sell alcohol to minors).

In retrospect, the PMRC was a classic example of people coming together for a common cause but with different agendas. Without the input of the 700 Club and other religious-based groups, the PMRC’s mission of a censorship-free campaign to protect children could have been effective. But, nowadays, 10-year-olds purchase Eminem CDs without hassle, making the PMRC’s efforts during the 1980s a waste of time.

Making it more of a “hassle” might not be such a bad idea. We need to know more about what it is exactly that Romney proposes.

Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 6:44 PM

And God will tell him which ones are bad…

right2bright on December 21, 2007 at 6:45 PM

What is he going to do, ban the San Fransisco city council?

right2bright on December 21, 2007 at 6:46 PM

And God will tell him which ones are bad…

right2bright on December 21, 2007 at 6:45 PM

Huckabee: “Are you sure God will tell him? I thought Jesus and his brother Satan would tell him…”

Frozen Tex on December 21, 2007 at 6:55 PM

Kratos08!

EnochCain on December 21, 2007 at 7:01 PM

And God will tell him which ones are bad…

right2bright on December 21, 2007 at 6:45 PM

Stunning hypocrisy here, r2b. I seem to recall you have been doing a fair share of preaching lately.

Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 7:16 PM

Another nanny state idea. Nothing Conservative in taking this stupid stance.

Gatordoug on December 21, 2007 at 7:22 PM

Now we know why Duke Nuke’em Forever hasn’t come out yet: Mitt Romney.

Hollowpoint on December 21, 2007 at 7:22 PM

Someone needs to read Miller v. California. It’ll be next to impossible to enforce obscenity laws on video games; this is more than likely something he said because he thought it would get him a few bonus points among a certain base.

Nonfactor on December 21, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 7:16 PM

BYe, Bye buydanish, stalk someone else, I have nothing to say to you…God told me not to talk to you, he said you are an obsessive stalker.

right2bright on December 21, 2007 at 7:23 PM

I’m covering my ears and still supporting you Mitt, but you’ll get my grand theft auto when you pry it from my cold dead hands…

Medicated on December 21, 2007 at 5:15 PM

Very funny (seriously) but presumably you are an adult. Not only do I see no evidence that Mitt wants to “lock up” retailers, I don’t see anything about him going after adults.

I know, I know, it’s the nose under the camel’s tent! It’s been 20 years since Tipper got voluntary warning labels put through and any minute now we won’t be able to by the music we adults choose to buy.

Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 7:24 PM

Miller v. California

Nonfactor on December 21, 2007 at 7:25 PM

Mitt. Give me a reason to vote for you. I want to.

As POTUS you have bigger fish to fry than policing Game Stop shops in Malls across America. Leave parenting to parents. Don’t say things just to satisfy the special interest group at hand. Instead:

Speak plainly.
Mean what you say.
Make actions match words.
Remember the value of silence and order.
Know that triangulation ends in strangulation.
Make friends and allies where possible.
Identify and shoot the enemy where not.
And please pass the ammo.

**grin**

Oh, and lastly, when in doubt, put in a Johnny Cash over Simon and Garfunkel.

Montana on December 21, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Gee, it’s a good thing that Mitt didn’t say any of this stuff with a southern accent, or Allah might actually manage to get upset about it.

Romney/Bloomberg 2008!111!!!111!eleven!!1!!

Watcher on December 21, 2007 at 7:30 PM

Oh I’m not worried about that, It just makes it increasingly difficult to overlook other statements that might relate to the constitution, like, for example “unusual lethality.” Working on another extended rant that I’ll post in a minute or two

Medicated on December 21, 2007 at 7:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2