Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Jack Thompson would probably have a seizure if he saw this video...

Zilla360Zilla360 21st Century.Surreal. Immersive. Earth.Registered User regular
edited April 2008 in Games and Technology
Finally, a sudden outbreak of common sense?

http://kotaku.com/380761/kids-who-dont-play-video-games-are-at-risk

Also:
John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146

April 16, 2008

Sheriff Kevin Beary
Orange County Sheriff's Department
2500 W. Colonial Drive
Orlando, FL 32804

Re: Sale of Sexual Material Harmful to Minors in Orange County, Florida

Dear Sheriff Beary:

On April 29, video game retailers will begin selling around the country, and in Orange County, Florida, the video game Grand Theft Auto IV. Previous versions of this game are basically "cop-killing simulators." I have appeared on CBS' 60 Minutes because of my representation of the families of three Alabama police officers killed by a teen who literally trained to kill them on Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.

It appears that this latest version, GTA IV, contains "sexual material harmful to minors," as defined by Florida Statute 847.012, and it appears sale of it to anyone under 18 will thus be a felony criminal act. As you may know, major retailers often violate their own age-ID policies by selling "Mature-rated" games to kids under 17, roughly half the time. But even if the retailers were to adhere to this policy, a game sold to someone 17, if it contains "sexual material harmful to minors," would constitute a criminal act, given the hiatus between the "17 and over" industry rating and the more stringent "18 and over" standard pertaining to sexual material. Game makers and retailers foolishly ignore the various states' and the federal government's laws that define a minor as someone 18, and that someone under that age cannot be sold this sexual material.

Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart and other major retailers in your area routinely ignore the video game industry's "17 and over" policy and sell "Mature" games to anyone of any age, even kids in their early teens. Repeated studies by the Federal Trade Commission have found this. Thus, you can be sure that many, many copies of GTA IV, marked "strong sexual content" like earlier versions of this "cop-killing game" will be sold to kids of all ages in Orange County starting April 29.

This particular game, GTA IV, has been edited for sale in Australia, and here is a news story suggesting some of the level of sexual content that is in the unedited American version that was taken out of the Australian version:
"In regards to what Rockstar has removed for the Australian release, as far as we're aware there was only one sexually violent cut-scene which Rockstar felt would cause the game to be Refused Classification [in Australia].
Unfortunately we're not able to go into specifics until after the game has been released but I can tell you that the scene involves a weapon being inserted into an enemies private area during a mission where Niko is taking revenge after one of his close friends was forced into sexual intercourse during his stay in prison."
In other words, it appears that the above-described scene may be in the unedited American version, along with other sexual content, of course, likely inappropriate for minors.

What we do know is that Rockstar Games, the maker of the GTA games, has put incredible amounts of sexual material in their earlier versions of the game, and in fact they placed a very graphic, sexually explicit mini-game in the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas game which forced the worldwide recall of the game when the hidden content was discovered. I am a Republican, but I worked with Senator Clinton in effectuating that recall in July 2005. Rockstar lied to the public in that scandalous episode known as "Hot Coffee."

Regardless of the above information as to what may have been removed for Australian consumers, it is clear that GTA IV should not be sold to minors anywhere. Here is the Entertainment Software Rating Board "descriptor" that is on the GTA IV game:

"Intense Violence, Blood, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content,
Partial Nudity, Use of Drugs and Alcohol."

I would strongly urge your Sheriff's Department to issue a warning now to all video game retailers in your County that your Department may proceed against them if it is found that a) GTA IV contains sexual material harmful to minors as defined by Florida Statute 847.012, and b) if these retailers are caught selling this game to minors. They will do so unless warned not to. That is certain. The Federal Trade Commission, as I indicated, has proven that fact over and over and over again.

I am more than happy to assist your Sheriff's Department in this regard, as the sale of this game to minors poses a significant public health and safety problem, as it truly is a murder simulator that has resulted in the deaths of law enforcement officers.

Regards, Jack Thompson
:lol:

Skidzilla360.jpg | NH844lc.png | GACSALB.jpg My Blog | Gravatar | PSN | 72INGtl.jpg | HkSlskT.png
Zilla360 on
«13456789

Posts

  • Road BlockRoad Block Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    The guys an idiot. Heck I don't like GTA games. But no one became a violent murderer by playing a video game. Playing a violent video game might be a side effect of being in danger of becoming a violent murder, It is never the cause.

    As for the edited Australian version. He seems to overlook the fact that our Rating system caps at 15+. We are working on fixing that. But until then a game that is 18+ in America will get knocked back here.

    Road Block on
  • XagarathXagarath Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    What's wrong with saying a video game not suitable for minors shouldn't be sold to them, exactly? He isn't trying to get it banned or re-rated this time.

    Xagarath on
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Hasn't he been disbarred already?

    I don't think so, but the trial notes seemed to point that direction. I don't think it's been ruled on yet.

    UncleSporky on
    3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504
    Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    "Playing video games for boys is a sign of social competence."

    Whoa what?

    Munkus Beaver on
    Steam name: munkus_beaver
    WiiU: munkusbeaver and Nintendo ID (3DS thinger): 0619-4510-9772
    Blizzard thing: munkus#1952
    Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but it dies in the process.
    Twitter which gives health updates and the like: https://twitter.com/MunkusBeaver
    Please give to the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America: http://www.ccfa.org/
  • reVersereVerse Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    I was expecting crazy rantings but that seems borderline sensible. I'm shocked.

    reVerse on
  • TyrantCowTyrantCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Harvard.

    TyrantCow on
  • WotanAnubisWotanAnubis Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    "Playing video games for boys is a sign of social competence."

    Whoa what?
    He's probably talking about... I dunno... doing good in school, being responsible at a job or something. Not, you know, making friends with the cool people.

    WotanAnubis on
  • FalloutFallout GIRL'S DAY EVERY DAYRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    I saw this vid a little earlier. Put a big smile on my face, they basically confirmed a lot of things i've always thought were true re: violent video games and the consequences, if any.

    Finally someone people with god damned heads on their shoulders studies it.

    Fallout on
    xcomsig.png
  • TyrantCowTyrantCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    He's talking about being able to interact with other people in general - avoiding being a complete introvert...
    Social competencies are the life skills that help young people grow up to be independent, capable, and competent. Social competencies equip young people to:
    # Deal with the choices and challenges they face;
    # Form and maintain healthy relationships;
    # Reduce or avoid stress--and cope with it when it occurs;
    # Be effective in school and the workplace; and
    # Contribute to their community and society.

    TyrantCow on
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Xagarath wrote: »
    What's wrong with saying a video game not suitable for minors shouldn't be sold to them, exactly? He isn't trying to get it banned or re-rated this time.

    God this is the dumbest position(Unless you're European, when it's reasonable I guess).


    No one, other than the 14 year olds who want to play GTA, are saying that restriction of age on games is a bad thing and that all games should be played by gamers of all ages.


    But there's this whole First Amendment thing that protects expression(to certain extents) from interference from the government. Unless we're going to say that Video Games contain no artistic value, or that they present an imminent danger to society, or something along those lines, then there is absolutely no justification for government control over the sale of video games, which is what JT keeps trying to impose on the games sales. He is not looking for Parents to exercise control, or for retailers and creators to step in an exercise judgment, he's looking for the Government to restrict the sale of video games to certain people.

    Censorship is not the answer, and should never be the answer(Oh, and yeah, restricting the distribution in any way of an artistic product is censorship).

    Khavall on
  • reVersereVerse Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Preventing minors from buying M rated games isn't cencorship.

    reVerse on
  • SimBenSimBen Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Yes it is. As soon as the government steps in to regulate and make law who can and can't play some games, it's censorship, because that means the government can decide which games are "good" or "bad". They could ban a game de facto, as it's done in several European countries, if they decide it's a "bad" game. Major retailers would not stock government-rated "adult" games, and essentially nobody would be able to play them. That's what we like to call censorship.

    SimBen on
    sig.gif
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Really?


    So at what point is a restriction of the distribution of artistic expression censorship then?

    EDIT: That was to reVerse.

    Khavall on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Is it illegal to GIVE GTA IV to a minor?

    Like, can I buy 100 copies and give them out to children like candy?

    Drez on
  • Ziac45Ziac45 Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    I don't see a problem with not selling the game to anyone under 18, it doesn't seem like he is trying to get the game banned completely so it is less ridiculous than his previous arguments.

    Ziac45 on
  • SimBenSimBen Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    Is it illegal to GIVE GTA IV to a minor?

    Like, can I buy 100 copies and give them out to children like candy?

    That is completely legal. It's also legal for a kid to go buy it himself. It's also legal for a kid to go see an R-rated movie in theaters.

    SimBen on
    sig.gif
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    TyrantCow wrote: »
    He's talking about being able to interact with other people in general - avoiding being a complete introvert...
    Social competencies are the life skills that help young people grow up to be independent, capable, and competent. Social competencies equip young people to:
    # Deal with the choices and challenges they face;
    # Form and maintain healthy relationships;
    # Reduce or avoid stress--and cope with it when it occurs;
    # Be effective in school and the workplace; and
    # Contribute to their community and society.

    This is nonsense.

    I've been playing games my whole life and I am completely introverted in every way.

    Jack Thompson doesn't know anything!

    The_Scarab on
    scarab you have mental problems
  • DisruptorX2DisruptorX2 Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Fallout was really awesome when I was 13, likewise for Carmageddon.

    GTA combines the Mature rated content from both of those into one game. Kids are really lucky these days.

    DisruptorX2 on
    1208768734831.jpg
  • MarlorMarlor Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Meh. I'm not American, but I see no problem with stopping kids from buying games and movies rated 18+. If their parents think they are mature enough, then they can buy them on their child's behalf.

    Society already has many rules in place that are based upon the principle that children are not as mentally developed as adults, and should therefore be treated differently. Restrictions on game or movie purchases are simply in accordance with that principle, so I don't see them as any great blow against freedom of expression.

    Children can't vote, but that's not a blow against universal suffrage. Children can't be married, but that's not a blow against the right to freely choose who you wed. If children couldn't buy age-restricted games, why would this be different?

    And I don't believe that adult ratings would lead to de-facto censorship. The BBFC and OFLC both have ratings that are legally enforced, but that hasn't led to the downfall of movies, films or games that have the highest ratings.

    The only problem would be if there are restrictions made on where products can be sold or displayed (like is done in Britain with their "Restricted" rating or Australia with the "X" movie rating)... but that's a different matter entirely.

    Marlor on
    Mario Kart Wii: 1332-8060-5236 (Aaron)
  • Bacon-BuTTyBacon-BuTTy Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Cop-Killing simulator!

    Bacon-BuTTy on
    Automasig.jpg
  • reVersereVerse Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Khavall wrote: »
    Really?


    So at what point is a restriction of the distribution of artistic expression censorship then?

    EDIT: That was to reVerse.

    Altering or outright banning something can fall under censorship. Restricting the sale of a product is just restricting the sale of a product.

    reVerse on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    The problem with Jack Thompson is that every letter he writes is half nonsense and half resume. He makes allusions to his claim that the Grand Theft Auto series is a "cop-killing simulator" (nonsense) and the rest is a detailed list of all his various quests and exploits in the video game-related law field (resume). And I'm pretty sure nobody gives a shit about either.

    Drez on
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    reVerse wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    Really?


    So at what point is a restriction of the distribution of artistic expression censorship then?

    EDIT: That was to reVerse.

    Altering or outright banning something can fall under censorship. Restricting the sale of a product is just restricting the sale of a product.

    They took the gunrape out of GTA4 in australia.

    I dont think this was because it was censored.

    Mainly because the publisher wanted to change it to fall in line with the oz ratings so that they could increase their sales.

    like how sometimes a movie will be cut to get a lower rating to get higher ticket sales.

    The_Scarab on
    scarab you have mental problems
  • DeadlySherpaDeadlySherpa Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Well this study sounds as biased as the many extreme studies to the contrary. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

    The correlation of violent behavior and attitudes relating to violent media is stronger than the link between smoking and lung cancer. This correlation is supported by hundreds of surveys, experiments, and longitudinal case studies.

    The scapegoating of violent video games in particular is ridiculous and comepletely overblown, but that there needs to be a scapegoat at all is obvious indication that there is a serious problem in how we portray violence in our media and the frequency that we do so.

    DeadlySherpa on
    tf2_sig.png
  • reVersereVerse Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    reVerse wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    Really?


    So at what point is a restriction of the distribution of artistic expression censorship then?

    EDIT: That was to reVerse.

    Altering or outright banning something can fall under censorship. Restricting the sale of a product is just restricting the sale of a product.

    They took the gunrape out of GTA4 in australia.

    I dont think this was because it was censored.

    Mainly because the publisher wanted to change it to fall in line with the oz ratings so that they could increase their sales.

    like how sometimes a movie will be cut to get a lower rating to get higher ticket sales.

    There is such a concept as "self-censorship". The artist wants to say something but thinks he'll get in trouble for it, so he chickens out and alters his work to be more acceptable.

    reVerse on
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Marlor wrote: »
    Meh. I'm not American, but I see no problem with stopping kids from buying games and movies rated 18+. If their parents think they are mature enough, then they can buy them on their child's behalf.

    Society already has many rules in place that are based upon the principle that children are not as mentally developed as adults, and should therefore be treated differently. Restrictions on game or movie purchases are simply in accordance with that principle, so I don't see them as any great blow against freedom of expression.

    Children can't vote, but that's not a blow against universal suffrage. Children can't be married, but that's not a blow against the right to freely choose who you wed. If children couldn't buy age-restricted games, why would this be different?

    And I don't believe that adult ratings would lead to de-facto censorship. The BBFC and OFLC both have ratings that are legally enforced, but that hasn't led to the downfall of movies, films or games that have the highest ratings.

    The only problem would be if there are restrictions made on where products can be sold or displayed (like is done in Britain with their "Restricted" rating or Australia with the "X" movie rating)... but that's a different matter entirely.

    Well first off, buying 18+ games is near-impossible even over here without governmental restriction, because a lot of stores won't carry it and none of the console manufacturers will let AO games be released on their consoles anyways.

    Also freedom of expression is drastically different than voting or marriage, and using them as something similar is something akin to saying "Well I can shoot animals, so why is shooting people so different?" Voting helps whoever votes indirectly by helping society. Those who are not prepared to vote will not be contributing to the good of society, which is why there is an age restriction. Children would suck at voting and it would be harmful to the society. This is not the case in children consuming artistic medium. Children can't get married for the same reason, they do not have the decision-making abilities to ensure that the marriage would work, they are simply not prepared for marriage. If a child consumes artistic expression, then there is no imminent danger of harm to society.

    Khavall on
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    reVerse wrote: »
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    reVerse wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    Really?


    So at what point is a restriction of the distribution of artistic expression censorship then?

    EDIT: That was to reVerse.

    Altering or outright banning something can fall under censorship. Restricting the sale of a product is just restricting the sale of a product.

    They took the gunrape out of GTA4 in australia.

    I dont think this was because it was censored.

    Mainly because the publisher wanted to change it to fall in line with the oz ratings so that they could increase their sales.

    like how sometimes a movie will be cut to get a lower rating to get higher ticket sales.

    There is such a concept as "self-censorship". The artist wants to say something but thinks he'll get in trouble for it, so he chickens out and alters his work to be more acceptable.

    Yeah but self censorship is ok.

    Also, from what they have said on the matter, it is the tiniest of changes anyways. In fact, I'm willing to bet if they hadnt mentioned it at all noone would notice.

    That is, as long as Rockstar made the call, not T2. And specifically Rockstar North.

    But who really cares, I've never had a problem with censorship in my life anyways. With the internet existing censorship is a lost cause anyways.

    The_Scarab on
    scarab you have mental problems
  • MarlorMarlor Registered User
    edited April 2008
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    They took the gunrape out of GTA4 in australia.

    I dont think this was because it was censored.

    Australia doesn't have an 18+ rating for games. This is unfortunate, and is solely due to one crazy old South Australian politician vetoing any changes to Australia's national game ratings (because he's a luddite).

    As a result, all games in Australia have to fall within the MA15+ rating or be refused classification. Rockstar feared that if they left the "gunrape" in, it might not meet the MA15+ guidelines, so they took it out before submitting it for classification.

    I'd say this is censorship. The law basically says that any game that doesn't meet the MA15+ criteria can't be sold at all. That's a problem... but one that is simply caused by outdated laws that will hopefully be updated soon (if the South Australian Attorney General can be made to see reason).

    Marlor on
    Mario Kart Wii: 1332-8060-5236 (Aaron)
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    reVerse wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    Really?


    So at what point is a restriction of the distribution of artistic expression censorship then?

    EDIT: That was to reVerse.

    Altering or outright banning something can fall under censorship. Restricting the sale of a product is just restricting the sale of a product.

    They took the gunrape out of GTA4 in australia.

    I dont think this was because it was censored.

    Mainly because the publisher wanted to change it to fall in line with the oz ratings so that they could increase their sales.

    like how sometimes a movie will be cut to get a lower rating to get higher ticket sales.

    Uh, how is that not censorship? It wasn't "censored" (past tense), but general content acceptibility in Australia had a chilling effect. A chilling effect that is, essentially, the same thing as censorship. But pre-censorship. If no other versions of the game existed, I might not have this opinion, but the fact that we know it was cut for a specific market specifically because of its ratings means that it was affected by censorship.

    Also, I'm pissed at Jack Thompson now. Not about his ludicrous letter but because he surreptitiously spoiled part of the game.

    He fights dirty.

    Drez on
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Yeah but really, who cares about Australia. Hmm?

    I get what you're saying, but I think JT is blowing things way out of proportion. Of course it's 'bad' but it's not ruining the game in any way, nor do I think anyone really gives a shit. I mean, we've known about the changes to the game for ages and there hasn't been pretty much any furor about it at all

    The_Scarab on
    scarab you have mental problems
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    reVerse wrote: »
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    reVerse wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    Really?


    So at what point is a restriction of the distribution of artistic expression censorship then?

    EDIT: That was to reVerse.

    Altering or outright banning something can fall under censorship. Restricting the sale of a product is just restricting the sale of a product.

    They took the gunrape out of GTA4 in australia.

    I dont think this was because it was censored.

    Mainly because the publisher wanted to change it to fall in line with the oz ratings so that they could increase their sales.

    like how sometimes a movie will be cut to get a lower rating to get higher ticket sales.

    There is such a concept as "self-censorship". The artist wants to say something but thinks he'll get in trouble for it, so he chickens out and alters his work to be more acceptable.

    Yeah but self censorship is ok.

    Also, from what they have said on the matter, it is the tiniest of changes anyways. In fact, I'm willing to bet if they hadnt mentioned it at all noone would notice.

    That is, as long as Rockstar made the call, not T2. And specifically Rockstar North.

    But who really cares, I've never had a problem with censorship in my life anyways. With the internet existing censorship is a lost cause anyways.

    This is not OK self-censorship. A form of OK self-censorship is when Konami toned down Silent Hill 2 because they thought some scenes were too gruesome. Nobody else judged the scenes, they did, and they decided based on their own principles to re-tune them a bit. (Actually, the story surrounding all this is pretty funny, you should look it up.)

    As for this GTAIV-in-Australia thing? This is a chilling effect perpetrated by a shitty ratings system that led to self-censorship, which might as well be regular censorship in this case.

    Drez on
  • Zilla360Zilla360 21st Century. Surreal. Immersive. Earth.Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    Is it illegal to GIVE GTA IV to a minor?

    Like, can I buy 100 copies and give them out to children like candy?

    It isn't. But you would go straight to android hell, do not pass go, do not collect any cake for doing so.

    Also you would only get to play this game for the rest of eternity.

    Zilla360 on
    Skidzilla360.jpg | NH844lc.png | GACSALB.jpg My Blog | Gravatar | PSN | 72INGtl.jpg | HkSlskT.png
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    Yeah but really, who cares about Australia. Hmm?

    I get what you're saying, but I think JT is blowing things way out of proportion. Of course it's 'bad' but it's not ruining the game in any way, nor do I think anyone really gives a shit. I mean, we've known about the changes to the game for ages and there hasn't been pretty much any furor about it at all

    I admit that the dingos, kangaroos, swamps, bogs, crocodiles, dundees, and certain ex-PA moderators have pretty much turned me off to the idea of ever living in Australia already, but assuming they hadn't, this form of "self-censorship" would absolutely be enough to never go there. Ever. And I'm being completely 100% series. The fact that Rockstar removed a single gun rape scene from their product specifically for the Australian market would be enough of a reason for me to never move there, all else being equal.

    And I doubt I'm alone in that opinion.

    Drez on
  • MarlorMarlor Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    I admit that the dingos, kangaroos, swamps, bogs, crocodiles, dundees, and certain ex-PA moderators have pretty much turned me off to the idea of ever living in Australia already, but assuming they hadn't, this form of "self-censorship" would absolutely be enough to never go there. Ever.

    One thing to remember... the current censorship regime is a temporary thing. It was already meant to be changed, but hasn't been because of the South Australian Attorney General (who I mentioned in a previous post).

    The current system was created back in the days of the NES. There was no 18+ rating, because the designers of the system didn't see a need for one. The MA15+ would surely cover anything imaginable.

    Now the OFLC and most Australians have realised that the ratings are outdated and need to be changed. But despite the support of the majority of the public and every single Attorney General bar one, the changes can't be made right now. The South Australian Attorney General is stopping them.

    Why is he doing so? He's an old-fashioned luddite. He's one of the "protect the children" brigade. He has no real knowledge of the videogame industry. But most important of all, it gets him lots of attention, and it is something he can use as a "bargaining chip" with the other state Attorneys General.

    I predict that he will fold on the issue some time in the next year, then we will have a modern ratings system.

    The point of all this is: the current ratings system shouldn't be used to reflect upon Australia in general, and it shouldn't be used by people like Jack Thompson to prove that any particular game is "obscene". It's simply an anomaly created by a single politician from Australia's most conservative state.

    Marlor on
    Mario Kart Wii: 1332-8060-5236 (Aaron)
  • MarlorMarlor Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Khavall wrote: »
    If a child consumes artistic expression, then there is no imminent danger of harm to society.

    Well, that really brings up the age-old issue of whether children can be harmed by exposure to "mature" content... which is an argument that is never going to be resolved.

    However, if you take the stance that children can view any content without harm, then that position basically refutes the need for the ESRB, CARA, the BBFC, PEGI, and all other classification boards. That's a perfectly valid position to take, but it's not one I agree with personally (however, it's not a position I'm going to argue against, because those debates rapidly devolve into circular arguments about morality).

    The position that I don't understand is the middle-ground one: that classification boards are useful, but that their ratings should simply be taken as a guideline (and not enforced). Surely, if certain content is damaging to children, then there should be restrictions put in place to stop them buying games and movies with that content. Conversely, if children are perfectly able to experience any content without concern, then there is no need for classification boards in the first place.

    Marlor on
    Mario Kart Wii: 1332-8060-5236 (Aaron)
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    reVerse wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    Really?


    So at what point is a restriction of the distribution of artistic expression censorship then?

    EDIT: That was to reVerse.

    Altering or outright banning something can fall under censorship. Restricting the sale of a product is just restricting the sale of a product.

    Oh I see, the problem is that you don't understand what Censorship is.

    Merriam-Websters says that to Censor is "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"

    Hey suppression?

    Oh like banning the sale to a certain group of people? Not to mention the social affect that banning the sale to minors would bring about, such as the title being pretty much only available on PC because the console producers wouldn't allow it to be released on their console? Or most retail stores refusing to carry it? So not only is it directly suppressing the sales by making the media unaccessible by a certain group of people, but also would indirectly suppress the sales by making the product harder to attain for the legal audience.

    Restricting the sale governmentally is censorship.


    Oh and by the way, Cultural and Self-censorship? That's ok. Artists choose to temper their message so that they can reach intended audiences. Sure in a perfect world there would be only entirely free artistic expression, but that's not the issue here. The government should not censor artistic expression, period.

    Khavall on
  • reVersereVerse Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Even if Lil Timmy can't buy the game, aslong as it is available for purchase and unaltered, it has not been censored.

    reVerse on
  • MarlorMarlor Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Khavall wrote: »
    Oh like banning the sale to a certain group of people? Not to mention the social affect that banning the sale to minors would bring about, such as the title being pretty much only available on PC because the console producers wouldn't allow it to be released on their console?

    Why do you think this would happen? It hasn't happened in any of the other countries that have age limits on games.

    "MA15+" games can only be bought by people over 15 in Australia... but they are sold in every store, and the console manufacturers have no issue with them.

    "18" games can only be bought by people over 18 in the UK... but again, they are widely available.

    "AO" is just an imaginary line drawn in the sand by console manufacturers. The refusal to publish games with that rating has nothing to do with age restrictions.

    Marlor on
    Mario Kart Wii: 1332-8060-5236 (Aaron)
  • WotanAnubisWotanAnubis Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Khavall wrote: »
    Also freedom of expression is drastically different than voting or marriage, and using them as something similar is something akin to saying "Well I can shoot animals, so why is shooting people so different?" (...) If a child consumes artistic expression, then there is no imminent danger of harm to society.
    I'm not sure freedom of expression works that way.

    I mean, if I were to film a hard-core pornographic movie (for example) and the government says that I probably shouldn't be showing this to kids, how does that diminish my freedom of expression?

    Unless I intended to show my hard-core porn flick exclusively to children, I wasn't exactly prevented from expressing myself to my target audience however I see fit, right?

    And if I did intend to peddle my smut to little kids, some might argue that my need to rot in jail for being a filthy pedophile is more important than my freedom to express myself.

    Or something.

    WotanAnubis on
Sign In or Register to comment.