Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

But there's still quite a bit of difference between banning video games and restricting actual (as in "in the original 1774 sense") freedom of speech. Not that I support this kind of censorship, mind you - I simply see no reason to ban that stuff, but a ban wouldn't be the worst thing in recent political history: There's more important issues.

It kinda reminds me of the "Volksverhetzung" laws here in Germany. Literally translated, it means "incitement of popular hatred"; you are not allowed to publically express yourself in a way that is likely or meant to lead to widespread violence in the population. This is basically a reaction to the 1933-1945 era - until a few years ago it was forbidden to wear or show swastikas and so on even if they were placed in a clearly anti.fascist context (e.g. crossed-out).

I'm very reluctant to quote Dubya, but: "There ought to be limits to freedom."

[Flare]

Was that law a result from the Streicher conviction during Nuremberg? I think he began Der Sturmer or something? I remember readings something about him being hanged for more or less making thinly veiled encouragements for people to attack jews and such.

[SalmonGod]

It kinda reminds me of the "Volksverhetzung" laws here in Germany. Literally translated, it means "incitement of popular hatred"; you are not allowed to publically express yourself in a way that is likely or meant to lead to widespread violence in the population. This is basically a reaction to the 1933-1945 era - until a few years ago it was forbidden to wear or show swastikas and so on even if they were placed in a clearly anti.fascist context (e.g. crossed-out).

I actually agree with this to a limited extent, but I don't think it's the same.  These are extremes of social irresponsibility for which there would naturally be extreme repercussions anyway.  There are always limits to any type of freedom for society to function at all.  The very basis of social organization is agreement, which amounts to limitations.

I imagine those laws apply mainly to public space, though, right?  I know very little about it, but I imagine you can bathe in swastikas in the privacy of your own home if you wish.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  This is the most important thing, I think.  In public space, you need to be respectful of the diversity of complete strangers around you, which means taking reasonable precaution against doing things that offend any common demographic.  But in private, you should be able to do pretty much whatever you want, so long as it doesn't cause problems beyond your private space.  When the law starts regulating what thoughts and images you can be exposed to even in your home, there's something else going on.

[Owlbread]

I don't think there should be a limit to your freedom. People should be able to use racial, national, religious and whatever slurs in public (not that I ever would) and say whatever they damned well want, or put whatever they want in a book, film or game. To offend someone should never be a crime, people should learn how to deal with it. I take an extreme view on this. Expression of thoughts should not be a crime. When you act on these thoughts, then it becomes a crime.

[misko27]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDxOSjgl5Z4'
 
Wish I'd seen this before the election.

[alexandertnt]

My quickly-written take on censorship:

Spoiler: Quite long (click to show/hide)

The reason for censorship is almost always because it is harmful in society. How do you define what could and could not cause problems beyond your private space? How do you define what these problems would include? Censorship is quite a complex issue mostly due to the fact that one generally does not consider censorship they agree with as censorship. This allows people to define it as an absolute evil despite (almost always) supporting some measure of censorship. It is a morally grey area.

Take something extreme, like certain-inappropriate-images-of-children, which is quite understandably illegal. Its distribution and ownership is illegal even in the space of one's own home. The reason for this is it can cause harm for the child, and that the child is not capable of making any decisions for itself. I don't think there are many people that would question this form of censorship, but most people do not regard this as a form of censorship, as it is generally regarded as a "special case".

In Germany, there are numerous restrictions against hate crimes, Nazi related things etc. The reason for this is the precieved potential to cause harm to the general populace. This is an example of generally accepted political censorship.

The problem with censorship, however is how easy it is to twist certain things into acceptable censorship. A totalitarian dictatorship might ban anti-dictatorship material because it could bring an uprising/revolution/etc. Dictators will usually give the reason as to maintain the public order etc. Even having this material in one's home could cause evil and disruptive influences.

Then there is self-censorship, or de facto censorship not written into law. For example a company might not want you to express certain viewpoints, or else they will fire you. Some countries forbid this (but then it is a different argument of corporate freedom etc etc). While you may be free in theory (law) you may be less free in practice. While most people are against this, it then opens the question up of when an employer can fire employee's. If it is illegal to do this, any legal action could cause the closure of the business (if it is small) and cause loss of job anyway. This form of censorship is generally regarded as being bad, but it is suprising how many people do not see it as censorship.

So most people support some form of censorship. Generally, when people clain to be 100% against it accomplish this by putting some forms of censorship into "special" categories.

For this reason, I am supportive of a limited form of censorship, and I don't see it as the absolute-evil but rather as a necessary tool that can be very easily abused. My general rule-of-thumb is to look at who is gaining the most through the censorship, and if the censorship extends to discussion about the subject. Is it a despotic dictator using it as an excuse to hold onto power? Or is it actually intended to do something which benefits the most people (ie society). Im assuming that while one cannot openly promote Nazi related things in Germany, one can still discuss about Nazi Germany, and about the censorship being applied.

tl;dr: Allowing for the existance of a censorship-that-is-not-censorship category gives a place-of-refuge for corrupt forms of censorship to take shelter in.

I don't think there should be a limit to your freedom. People should be able to use racial, national, religious and whatever slurs in public (not that I ever would) and say whatever they damned well want, or put whatever they want in a book, film or game. To offend someone should never be a crime, people should learn how to deal with it. I take an extreme view on this. Expression of thoughts should not be a crime. When you act on these thoughts, then it becomes a crime.

Im sure there must be some things you would not want in a film or game. Think of the most abhorrent, twisted, and currently illegal things you possibly can.

[Owlbread]

I don't think there should be a limit to your freedom. People should be able to use racial, national, religious and whatever slurs in public (not that I ever would) and say whatever they damned well want, or put whatever they want in a book, film or game. To offend someone should never be a crime, people should learn how to deal with it. I take an extreme view on this. Expression of thoughts should not be a crime. When you act on these thoughts, then it becomes a crime.

Im sure there must be some things you would not want in a film or game. Think of the most abhorrent, twisted, and currently illegal things you possibly can.

No, I don't have a problem with them being in it. I just wouldn't buy the game.

[kaijyuu]

I only accept censorship if a victim can be established. And I do mean actual harm, not the bullshit "think of the children" some people throw around.

Child pornography (as in, with real people depicted) and harassment are the two most obvious examples.

[Owlbread]

I only accept censorship if a victim can be established. And I do mean actual harm, not the bullshit "think of the children" some people throw around.

Child pornography (as in, with real people depicted) and harassment are the two most obvious examples.

I think any kind of image should be legal provided the characters depicted are fictional and it's not, for example, a live action video of an actual animal being murdered or child being abused.

[GreatJustice]

I don't think there should be a limit to your freedom. People should be able to use racial, national, religious and whatever slurs in public (not that I ever would) and say whatever they damned well want, or put whatever they want in a book, film or game. To offend someone should never be a crime, people should learn how to deal with it. I take an extreme view on this. Expression of thoughts should not be a crime. When you act on these thoughts, then it becomes a crime.

This, though I would say there is a "limit" in that your freedom of speech ends once you enter the property of someone else.

For example, I can't just stroll into McDonalds and loudly talk about how terrible their food is to the people in line, I can't insult you and disrespect you in your own house, and I can't obnoxiously yell at the theatre in the middle of a movie.

[Owlbread]

I don't think there should be a limit to your freedom. People should be able to use racial, national, religious and whatever slurs in public (not that I ever would) and say whatever they damned well want, or put whatever they want in a book, film or game. To offend someone should never be a crime, people should learn how to deal with it. I take an extreme view on this. Expression of thoughts should not be a crime. When you act on these thoughts, then it becomes a crime.

This, though I would say there is a "limit" in that your freedom of speech ends once you enter the property of someone else.

For example, I can't just stroll into McDonalds and loudly talk about how terrible their food is to the people in line, I can't insult you and disrespect you in your own house, and I can't obnoxiously yell at the theatre in the middle of a movie.

There are problems with this though. You would have to be very clear about where that limit lies because what's to stop McDonalds from seeing your legitimate complaints as a breach of that law?

[kaijyuu]

I only accept censorship if a victim can be established. And I do mean actual harm, not the bullshit "think of the children" some people throw around.

Child pornography (as in, with real people depicted) and harassment are the two most obvious examples.

I think any kind of image should be legal provided the characters depicted are fictional and it's not, for example, a live action video of an actual animal being murdered or child being abused.

Agreed.

This, though I would say there is a "limit" in that your freedom of speech ends once you enter the property of someone else.

For example, I can't just stroll into McDonalds and loudly talk about how terrible their food is to the people in line, I can't insult you and disrespect you in your own house, and I can't obnoxiously yell at the theatre in the middle of a movie.

My understanding is McDonalds can throw you out for any reason or no reason. Right to refuse service, and all that. So that's not so much "censorship" specifically, though it can be used for such.

[scriver]

Political censorship, sure. Censoring violent games? No. Have some perspective, please. It's not at all the same thing.

Censoring violent videogames is just as bad.
(Also, censoring porn is worse)

That mere thought is a grave insult to anyone who's ever been imprisoned, tortured, or killed for their attempts to rightfully criticise their regime, Bohandas.

Also, do note that you just called censoring porn, of all things, worse than censoring political opinion. That is the most tucked up priorities.

She voted for the Patriot act. And then voted against for the sole (publicly stated) reason that her state wasn't getting paid enough for it. Then she voted for it when they made the changes she wanted.

She wants to make flag-burning illegal. She introduced legislation to make flag burning punishable with a year of jailtime and enormous fines.

She has publicly states she believes in a stronger executive branch.

She is opposed to same-sex marriage. She favours keeping marijuana illegal.

The main problem with her video game censorship isn't even that she wants to censor video games, but that reading her arguments on it makes it clear she's a moron who is unfit to govern. (Not that this is out of the ordinary for politicians)

She also supports the death penalty for violent criminals and wants more federal executions.

Suffice to say, I don't think I'd be happy with her.

These are all much more concerning topics, none of which I knew about. I'll have to retract my endorsement, it seems.

[USEC_OFFICER]

I imagine those laws apply mainly to public space, though, right?  I know very little about it, but I imagine you can bathe in swastikas in the privacy of your own home if you wish.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  This is the most important thing, I think.  In public space, you need to be respectful of the diversity of complete strangers around you, which means taking reasonable precaution against doing things that offend any common demographic.  But in private, you should be able to do pretty much whatever you want, so long as it doesn't cause problems beyond your private space.  When the law starts regulating what thoughts and images you can be exposed to even in your home, there's something else going on.

If I remember correctly, in Germany you can get charged for having Nazi symbolism/memorabilia in your home if it's not a family related or something like that. So having Grampa's old WWII medal that he got from Hitler himself is perfectly fine, while buying up old WWII medals for display is not. I believe the reasoning goes that the only people who would collect such things outside of historical/family reasons are Neo-Nazis, which are also illegal in Germany.

[kaijyuu]

That sort of behavior/attitude seems like it'd only encourage Neo Nazis, to me.