Comments on: Retro: M-for Mature?

By: Mike Anderson

Mike Anderson — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:24:56 +0000

I am strongly opposed to ‘hate speech’ laws, as I believe that they are very much like the incursions into personal life made in the name of ‘patriotism’ under Bush – they are supposed to help quell the environment created by associating an individual with the stereotypical and negative characteristics of a protected class. But that isn’t what they do – they are used regularly by people with political agendas to forward their own ideas.

I believe that all artistic ideas deserve protection, whether it is James Joyce (yes, banned), Maplethorpe, or whatever.

As for what should *not* be protected … I’m pretty good with the ‘direct harm’ stuff like slander and libel, as well as directly inciting harm against others (yelling fire, inciting riots, whatever). But I think the burden of proof needs to be pretty high.

By: James Camp

James Camp — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:57:14 +0000

What are your views on hate speech laws and slander? Do people deserve the right to advocate criminal violence against homosexuals or feminists or Christians or to lie about individuals? Obviously our government supports some censorship in favor of a few select minorities, but the question remains: do all ideas — even the truly evil ones — deserve protection from censorship?

For a long time America thought they didn’t and the courts kept a number of pornographic works (The Tropic of Cancer and a few of Freud’s books) out of the country by obscenity laws. The popular opinion on censorship is of course against it now, but where does the responsibility of the person end and that of the government begin?

Preferably people would be responsible enough that pornography or sadism would never even enter society, but that is a lost cause. The question is now, does the government have the duty to protect pornography and sadism under “free speech” or does it
(and the citizenry) have a moral gauge with which to legally condemn it.

By: Mike Anderson

Mike Anderson — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:00:37 +0000

Words, ideas and actions are different. Saying the world would be better is X were true is one thing, actively inciting others to use destructive means to make it happen is another, and the acts of destruction are another still.

By: James Camp

James Camp — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:04:34 +0000

Out of morbid curiosity how do you rationally defend freedom and attack censorship? Where do you draw the line? I haven’t really taken a view on this yet, but it seems the popular thing to attack censorship and defend freedom at all cost. Isn’t the condemnation of murder and rape a censorship of actions? Again, I’m not saying I’m for censorship (or murder) but it is so easy to fall into to egoism that I would like to hear some well-thought-out opinions on it.

By: Mike Anderson

Mike Anderson — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:52:16 +0000

It was a commercial thing – AO was equated with ‘video game pr0n’ and therefore banned at retail.

By: Shae Robinson

Shae Robinson — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:49:53 +0000

When exactly did the major consoles decide no on AO?

By: Mike Anderson

Mike Anderson — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:01:14 +0000

Nice article, GamerDad! It is interesting with all of the ‘studies’ done in the past 5 years, much of what you cite there is repeated in the research presented recently in ‘Grand Theft Childhood’.

It is interesting in that book that the authors state that it might be more of a problem playing a T-rated game where you shoot people and there is no blood or realistic action, just dead bodies that disappear, as opposed to a game like Soldier of Fortune 2 where you see someone screaming with blood pumping from their severed leg or whatever. That disconnection from the consequences of their actions might be more of a problem than the gory imagery in terms of impact.