@ JBentley

Well, "freedom of speech" squawking aside, I think this is where the controversy is. A lot of people are yammering and I'm not sure that more than a handful actually KNOW the content of the exhibit.

@ZippyDSMlee

As i said, the terrorists have won.

I'm already thinking we lost the war on terror. They won,we're terrified.

Agree with kurisu7885.

Sad but true.

20 years ago, they would be sipping their wine, and nodding at his boldness in addressing a hard issue. Instead they're afraid he's a loose cannon...

What do you mean terrorism concerns? They think Bilal is a terrorist, or that the mere sight of this game is going to make people terrorists? Of course, neither one makes sense. Perhaps he should change his name to Bob Johnson. Then he might be allowed to speak freely in this country.

For some reason, I really want to play this game now. Just because the government tells me I can't see it.

Score yet another victory for God damned rightwing conservatives and their fundamentalist flunky kin. Freedom gets yet another screwing without even a reach around.

Gods forbid anyone suggest that the impressionable, scared, confused, and angry people are easy prey to terrorists...

What this guy is saying isn't anything new, its just common sense and fact... it was seen in Northern Ireland back during the troubles there, it is seen still in Israel/Palastine on both sides, and its been seen in every country invaded for any reason, ever.

If you see your family killed, regardless of the reason, you will become angry.. human nature demands revenge.... and if someone offers you a way of getting it, you might very well take it.

The "War on Terror" is really just another form of this, a bunch of people got killed, so lets go to war to try and solve it.. doesn't work, didn't work in Northern Ireland, won't work in Israel, and won't work here.

One of the amusing bits in here is it sounds like the FBI is being reasonable and doing exactly what they should be doing. They hear about something that sounds suspect, they send people to observe and see if there is a problem. No intimidation, no interference, just checking it out.

RPI on the other hand is being kinda slimy and playing the 'We're not liberal! really! see! we love our troops and our beloved president!' card.

They are probably worried about bad press... a sad day for American's, and by extension the world, when a place of learning and debate believes it will get worse press for allowing a thought provoking, if unpopular, idea than for preventing it.

The best way to fight terror is education and humor. It seems that RPI refuses to educate, so let me try my hand at humor.

Anyone else think that "Night of Bush Capturing" sounds like some sleazy Japanese hentai game?

Allow me to play a little bit of the devil's advocate.

A lot of you are complaining that the school is only concerned about money. Well, that is the school's business. Without funds the school will shut down, teachers will lose their jobs, and the students will lose an institution of learning. Haven't we advocated using your pocketbook to protest and censor rather than the government?

I'm not agreeing with this, but if the Alumni are threatening the school, they can either listen or declare bankruptcy.

@ Gameboy

You're quite right, alumni influence should be a factor in the school's decision making process. I'm just disappointed with some of the (apparently vocal) alumni.

But without seeing the exhibit to judge its artistic value for myself, it's hard for me to decide whether or not I would want to support it, although my gut says that I don't want to see it canceled.

Before anyone misunderstands me, I think the school should of allowed the exhibit. No matter what you do or say, you will offend someone somewhere. At least, if they allowed the exhibit, someone may have learned something. Viewing this work might have inspired a modern day Picasso!

Besides, it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

"So much for the fredom of speech."

I fail to see where in the constitution, or bill of rights, where it is said that you are garuanteed a platform for your views. RPI is perfectly with in IT'S right to deny Mr. Bilal access to it's facilities to show off his work.

Freedom of speech, is not freedom from the reaction to your speech.

@ Steve
@ Lumi

I did say that they did make us scared, but that doesn't mean because we are scared we act solely out of total retaliation. We have given up some things to improve others, but didn't we do the same thing or something similar when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor? But yes there has been a couple of generations between that and now. Plus being in a Post 9/11 era doesn’t mean we have given up those freedoms. They maybe suspended on those who are suspected of terrorist activity. But other wise the rest of America isn’t much affected. We still have news papers printing there version of the story Fox News televising their view. We still have people going to Churches, Synagogues, and other places of religious gatherings. We still exercise the rights of speech and expression here without fear of Uncle Sam arresting us because we said or wrote something they didn’t like. But if you are in fear of that your just paranoid. Granted paranoia is more common since 9/11 but we shouldn’t let it run our lives.

N Thomson
Solider
Gamer
Student

"We are still American’s who fight for our rights and freedoms including free speech and expression..."

"Who are you to say ... "

Yeah... that pretty much sums up the whole justification of the war right there.

Pretty much the usual "We're over there fighting for your Freedoms so SHUT UP! You don't have the Right to speak in opposition of what's going on or being told by the 'approved" messages of the government."

Yep. This war really makes sense. :/

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

@ N Thompson

I'm afraid you miss the fundamental contradiction in your post. You claim that America still has it's rights of free speech and freedom of expression. Yet you admit that the freedom is restricted to those suspected of Terrorist activity. saying, "But other wise the rest of America isn’t much affected. "
I take it 'The Rest' means the non-arab, members of america?
If so, don't you realise that by making one rule for one segment of the country's population you've already sacrificed the freedom of your citizens?

Also what exactly is a Solider? is that some sort of adhesive polymer agent? or was spelling not a high priority on the US Army entry exam?

@N Thomson

"We have given up some things to improve others, but didn’t we do the same thing or something similar when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor?"

If you're going to bring up Pearl, at least make sure the reaction was the same.

The US government is behaving more like during the McCarthy era. "Are you or have you ever been a Muslim?"

The point of terrorism is to use a country's public against them. In that essence, the terrorists HAVE won. You're willing to give up certain freedoms in order to achieve the illusion of safety from the terrorists. But the terrorists know that all they need to do is yell "boo", and your country practically wets itself in the dive for cover. So really while you're safer from the Reids, and other small-time, wannabe, ineffective idiots who do things like bring guns to the airport, you're no safer from the "real" terrorists, the competent ones who spend 5-10 years putting together sleeper cells to pull off 9/11...

This is a classic example of public panic. The mere mention of art that examines the issue of the vulnerability of Iraqis to recruitment, and suddenly everyone's running around like it'll cause 9/11 times 100 (that's 91,100 btw... ;) TA:WP ftw!)

Maybe they freaked out cause of the name?

@ Colonel Finn
@ all

Thank you for your correction of the spelling of Soldier, but none the less your missing my point to enforce the security of our freedoms and rights sometimes we have to give them up to get them back. Yes we still have them. I'm not making this a religous bias or racial bias discussion, that's not the point here. The fact that he is presenting a hacked version of a game regaurdless of who made it and it's content is a large concern. Would you as a board member of a school allow one of your professors of your school allow some one to make a presentation with illegal owned software. Would your ethics as a board member allow you to let it continue? Mine would not reguardless of what is being presented.

N Thomson
Soldier
Gamer
Student

You know, unless there's some specific real world data or information that explains how to get past America's defenses or assassinate the President, then I really don't see what the fuss is about.

The exhibit sounds, to me, like a way to see through the "enemy's" point of view. Now I put "enemy" in quotes like that because as we know quite well, defining the "enemy" at this point in time is like trying to contain a fart in a jar.

It's not like back in World War II where the enemies were the clearly defined Nazi (or is the plural "Nazis") of Germany? They had uniforms, insignia, and were damn proud of being who they were. Granted, they were also damn proud of purifying the human race to meet their warped belief system.

I had an interesting discussion with people on another forum who do not believe in the concept of "Evil". They believe that what Evil can not exist as a "True Evil" because what may be Evil to us, is another culture's Good. Case in point, the Nazi (Nazis) believed that they were doing the greater good by following Hitler and exterminating all other non-aryan races. In this case, the Radical Muslims (and I do mean Radical as not all Muslims think this way) believe that what they are doing by fighting America is for their greater good.

Now from what I can tell, the whole notion of this exhibit was to give us, the people of the USA, a chance to see things from the Radical Muslim's point of view and try to understand WHY they thought they are fighting the good fight and why they think they are fighting for truth, justice, and the non-national way.

BUT NOOOOOOO!

Apparently some people got a stick of patriotism so far shoved up their bum that they can't be bothered to think what other people think. It is too much of a challenge to their beliefs that if they were ever to doubt our own "goodness" that their entire society would crumble and the terrorists would win.

To this, I reply with a smack across the head, a smack across the back of the head, a good shaking, and a loud "GET OVER IT!" I would then proceed to take them to the exhibit for a chance to widen their horizons.

Now as far as the FBI are concerned, they just want to make sure there's no sensitive information in this exhibit. Stuff such as actual real life pass codes, blueprints of real world buildings, detailed plans to take down our government, or build bombs.

That stuff is illegal for a reason!

But say I make a game where I'm a super-cyborg or robot with an unlimited supply of ammo and Secret Service agents all happen to drop missiles that are automatically loaded into my missile turret once I step on said dropped missile. I go on a rampage, blow away planes, hell let's say I have rocket boosters that let me fly. I single-handedly decimate D.C., blow up the White House with a couple missiles and bullets, and then grab W. with a mechanized robo-arm and crush him while doing the "I'm crushing your head" bit.

A game like that is pure fantasy and in no way related to anything in real life. It may just be one person's way of venting at the current administration by imagining to be this near-invincible robot who single-handedly blows everything up.

The controls are "Up, Left, Down, Right, Jump, Shoot" with up and shoot launching missiles. Except in flying levels where missiles are infinite and smart bombs that wipe out the screen are finite.

Oh sure, this will teach terrorists how to build a super robot and go on to destroy D.C.! (Sarcasm)

Finally, I do not deny that there is propaganda out there. Whether it be "enemy" propaganda or Patriotic propaganda, it's still propaganda, and by STUDYING said propaganda, we LEARN from it, see through the eyes of others, and gain a level of clairvoyance.

I say let the exhibit go and just let bygones be bygones.

Sheesh!

~Otaku-Man

"The students and the alumni are voting in the most dirrect way they can, their donations.

Why aren’t they allowed their freedom of speech in saying “We do not support this?”

They ARE allowed their freedom of speech. They have every right to say, when they give money, this money can't fund this or that. The thing is, the school invited the artist to do lectures and if he's invited he should be given the freedom to lecture as he sees fit, no matter what groups it offends.

"The thing is, the school invited the artist to do lectures and if he’s invited he should be given the freedom to lecture as he sees fit, no matter what groups it offends. "

I couldn't dissagree more.

This is exactly what I've been saying. He's angered their paying customers, who have said "We will stop paying you, till you stop presenting this matereal."

If RPI wishes to continue because they believe the message is important enough that they're willing to lose paying customers, that is their RIGHT. Not their obligation as many are suggesting.

@Ian Cooper

"They ARE allowed their freedom of speech. They have every right to say, when they give money, this money can’t fund this or that."

As I said, it kinda betrays the principle of the institution. If you are attaching conditions to your donation, then you don't really believe in the principle most educational art institutions are founded on.

Funding the arts is tricky that way.

I can understand not wanting your donations to fund the art department, but if you agree the money can be used for art, then really it seems a rather sad restriction to limit the kind of art, or the range of ideas allowed to be expressed...

@ Jabrwock

"As I said, it kinda betrays the principle of the institution. If you are attaching conditions to your donation, then you don’t really believe in the principle most educational art institutions are founded on.

Funding the arts is tricky that way.

I can understand not wanting your donations to fund the art department, but if you agree the money can be used for art, then really it seems a rather sad restriction to limit the kind of art, or the range of ideas allowed to be expressed… "

Eh, it is really, REALLY a stretch to refer to RPI as an "education art institution". RPI is an engineering school; the art department has seen HUGE advances in just the last few years, since Shirley Ann took over. In a nutshell, the whole art thing is new there.

That said, I'd have no problem with someone making a donation and saying "this is only to be used for math" or "this is only to be used for electronic art" or "this is only to be used for purchasing akido mats for the union club that meets every Monday and Thursday night" (though at that point you should probably just buy the mats yourself and donate those). But there's a ton of room between "you must use this money for this" and "you may use this money for anything except for an Iraqi art exhibit".

Earmarking donations is a really common thing, it doesn't bother me too much, really.

While I agree that the average person on the street probably hasn't considered how tempting it might be for a person under distress to join a shady organization for the cause of vengeance or percieved injustice. I'm quite sure that civilian unrest before/during/after military action is not something that is ignored by ANY military force.

I also agree that it is important to make folks outside of military circles (read: the public) aware that military action of any kind is NOT cut-n-dry simple work. I think that it is important that the general public understand the delicate and difficult position that this (not just Bush) and several previous administrations have put the US into.

Overall, I do think that his core message should be heard. However, it sounds like the way that he's delivering his message is flawed at best.

"If Bilal was making a point about the vulnerability of Iraqi civilians to the travesties of the current war, I failed to see it, as did every other student I spoke to." --RPI student body president Julia Leusner

That statement is where my concern lies. We all know what Bilal is saying his message is, but is that the same message that is actually being delivered? We can all argue about supposed slights to a person's freedom of speech, about how it's just another case of 'the man keeping the little guy down'. But really, has anyone considered (at least for a second) that maybe Bilal might have intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented his work?

Just tossing some questions out there that looked like folks aren't asking.

"You’re correct, but I think that people are overlooking the fact that there are probably at least as many students and alumni who will be voting the opposite way with their donations as well."

Exactly. It's up to RPI to choose what they want to present as part of the education, because that is their right. Not their obligation.

@Artifex

Well, the game is about people recruited to kill Bush. Baiscally, a game about being a terrorist. This guy put his head on that character. The message seems pretty clear that he easily sees how he himself could become a terroist. Seems pretty clear to me.

If my brother were killed (as his was), I could see having the same attitude. What I don't see is who killed his brother. If his brother was collateral damage from a direct US strike, or killed in the general lawlessness following the invasion, one could reasonably hold the US responsible. If it were me, and I had a chance at revenge against the the offending party, I would certainly consider taking it. That's your family. Family is more important than country, that's for sure.

I think it's pretty obvious that for every Iraqi killed, there is a whole family of potential terrorists / enemies. Making this point should be pretty much common sense. I don't see anything even controversial about it. We wanted blood after the twin towers attack, why should we find it somehow controversial that anyone else would react any differently to their loved ones being killed? By putting his head in the game, I think he would make that point pretty plainly.

The only controversy here is that it does shed light on the fact that we are responsible for killing many civilians in Iraq, and are responsible for the creation of some terrorists. To me that all seems like common sense, something we should expect to happen if we choose to go to war. That is something that should have been well known and discussed in the open before making the vote to go to war.

Why there is any controversy here confuses me. We can go to war, kill people, yet we cannot talk about the repercussions of doing so? Seems like we are forcing our own heads into the sand here.

Seems to me this is a simple pair of issues.

1. Private people stopped donating to a college because they didn't like a piece of art on display there.

2. Students didn't want to see a particular piece of art on display at their college.

People donating to a college stopped because they didn't support something. Okay, I can see that. If I'm donating money to a place, and that place starts creating art that goes against my values, whether they be religious, political, moral, etc, I would stop funding it. That's easy. Sure, it may be economic censorship, but it's not the people's job to get airtime for a cause they don't support. So the first issue isn't that people stopped donating. It's a little less complex than that.

The issue lies in whether or not the donating parties have seen the art. If they have, and they withdraw their money, all right then. You're going to have to find a new venue.

However, if the donating parties have not seen the art, and they withdraw on reflex, that's the problem. You need to see what you're (not) funding before deciding how to sort your contributions.

For the students who are complaining, I have a really simple, easy-to-understand answer: If something offends you, don't go. Really. I doubt exposure to a game is going to turn the entire student body into terrorists. If that's all it took, I'd have Rambo'd my way through most of North America by now.

To sum up my opinion on this...

1. The investors in the college need to see the art, so they know where their money is going. If they refuse, then they are the people we should be mad at. If they see it, and still don't donate, then bummer. The guy is going to have to find a new place to show his art. I'd suggest the internet.

2. A group students shouldn't be able to chase someone off campus. If they don't like something, they can just not go.

3. The feds don't really have anything to do with this, except that their actions have created the environment we live in. To be honest, the FBI are the most rational about this: "We'll check it out and investigate if there's a problem."

I'm sure I've over-simplified this to some extent (Yay for understatements!), but I spent the morning reviewing recursion. Feel free to point out my foolishness in trying to make a molehill out of a mountain.

I don't see this as a free speech issue, really. If he was spouting radically new ideas and being silenced for them, there might be a case. The whole, "The War is Causing More Terrorist Recruiting!" idea has been around for ages. In fact, there was a game shortly after 9/11 that portrayed a no-win game, that the protagonist dropped bombs on terrorist camps, but inevitable collateral damage just made regular citizens into terrorists. The only way to 'win' was not to play (WarGames, anyone?). There was some really good discussion (I believe at Watercoolergames, but I can't find it), then.

Unfortunately, we have degenerated, once again, into the ridiculous right/left, right/wrong, hippie/warmonger tripe conversations again.

An institution makes it's own rules, and money talks. So what? The guy gets more publicity for his silly reskinning of a crappy game, and gets his message out all the same. So what? I amazed that this issue got even a raised eyebrow outside of this campus. National issue, I think not.

N Thomson, I want to thank you for your sevrvice to our country. I want to make sure you understand that I appreciate, and support my military in any way I can. A few of my close friends are actively on duty in Iraq and Afganistan. My opinion of the war comes from the high regard I have for those indivuals, and what they tell me they accomplished.

But, please understand that not everyone who doesn't support the current war is a terrorist sympathizer who hates our country and troops.

Also, the idea that citizens should EVER relinquish freedoms to our government is 100% contrary to what this country was founded on. And is opposite to what we are currently fighting for. We have given Iraqis a taste of freedom at the cost of our own blood. Why? Because our freedoms are worth dying for. I refuse to accept that our government is taking away freedom while fighting to protect the very same.

"'We are still American’s who fight for our rights and freedoms including free speech and expression…”

“Who are you to say … ”

Yeah… that pretty much sums up the whole justification of the war right there.

Pretty much the usual “We’re over there fighting for your Freedoms so SHUT UP! You don’t have the Right to speak in opposition of what’s going on or being told by the ‘approved” messages of the government.”

Yep. This war really makes sense. :/"

QFT

I was just looking at RPI's wikipedia page and it says that Curtis Priem, the founder of Nvidia, is a graduate. It would be intresting to see what that alumnus thinks of the situation and how much money he donates to the school...

Shouldn't the FBI be doing something to prevent actual terrorist acts instead of dickin' around with a game?Oh crap, here comes the IRS.

"So long as RPI sponsors these kinds of events, giving absolutely no consideration to military alumnus, friends and family of the university, I will not contribute a dime to the school."

to be honest i have zero complaints about this stance on the mater, if the person has complaints about the exhibits it's fully his right to voice them and withdraw his funding, he is voting with his wallet, obviously several other people also complained and the school closed the exhibit

@ tony selby

He has that right, certainly. I think it's just a matter of people disagreeing with his reasoning for withdrawing his donation.

If we intend to ban things that may or may not be terrorist recruiting tools, then we need to ban the Quran. We also need to ban the Bible, as we do have some local terrorists that use it as a recruiting tool.

The thing is, you can't fight terror with ignorance. The best way to fight terror is through education. We don't have to agree with it's message but we ought to at least have the right to hear it.

What exactly is the fear here? If I see this game, will I realize that what my government is doing is abhorrent. If so, then the problem is not the game but the government, and we have more effective methods of changing our government than blowing people up.
Terrorists recruit from the poor and opressed. Do we have too many poor and oppressed in this country? If so, again it's the fault of our government.

I'm sorry, but I see no moral reason why this exhibit should be banned, especially by an institution that claims to believe in the freedom of speech.

And as for the comments made about cutting some freedoms to protect the people, I believe Chavez is using that same line as well as several hundred other dictators throughout history. It sounds reasonable, but it always ends the same.

It seems to me that the act of banning any speech/expression (assuming it contains no sensitive information) is admitting fear-admitting that you are afraid of the message, fear it might win out over your own beliefs. If you hold your own beliefs in so little regard, then yes, you have already lost.

@lumi

"I emailed one of my professors there earlier today when I first read this article to ask him about it. He said that it wasn’t canceled"

Is there a campus news site that has covered this? Or are we just relying on the Albany Times-Union?

@lumi

Apparently teachers were permitted to take their students, but the exhibit was "closed to the public" by order of RPI's President.

http://chicanafeliz.com/vlog/?p=508

“It is entirely seemly for a young man killed in battle to lie mangled by the bronze spear. In his death all things appear fair.” - Homer

maybe should update it too

“It is entirely seemly for a young man killed in battle unrecognized by a bomb blast. In his death all things appear fair.” - Neo Homer

I remember not to long ago a video was create where you can assassinate Saddam Hussein and that was accepted but as soon as you start playing the "Bad Guy" its all wrong.

I am heavy critic of Media, mainly looking at the communicative abilities of the media. There are 2 great and well know movies that are similar in store line (from what I have read), The Last Samurai and Dances with Wolves. The main difference between this story and those movies are the foreign factor.

In Dances with Wolves and Last Samurai, So one from America goes and visits a society that is losing its culture, land, people, and way of life. In Dances with Wolves, it was the Native Americas; in the Last Samurai it was the Japanese.

For those that do not know the plot synopsis, The foreigner (American) down on his luck some how gets Assigned to a far off outpost. Some how gets integrated with society of the people in that outpost. Learns their way of life, culture and etc. Then learns stands up for them and willing to fight in their battle against the people the foreigner's former associates.

I dont know about you, but if I were an American and saw that person doing that my immediate though is traitor. But then during the course of the movie they provide context to the point where the audience does not believe traitor. They are left with the belief that the foreigner is doing the right thing. But was it really? It all depends on what side of the fence you stand on.

The main difference I see in this game, is that the person is not a foreigner but of the culture and of the culture and willing to fight against those that killed his brother. Is he right? Again it all depends on what side of the fence you are on.

And for those who say it is the schools right and that they will lose money, well I say this what is the purpose of a school? Is it to turn a profit? Or is to educate, provide a place for discourse, and to learn?

Yes a school cant run without money but if the schools objective is turn a profit, they might as well stop calling it a school but a business. If I go to a school that is for-profit, they better be paying me to attend when they start to claim what I do there as theirs.

side note

I am just wondering when the Movie about the Iraq losing its way and having some foreigner help them out. I am surprise that made it about Japan especially after all the propaganda in WWII.

This is basically what I expected. While I have never seen the mod specifically, I have seen the original Night of Bush Capturing. And if most of the content of the original game was left intact in Bilal's mod, then yes, it would be highly offensive to family of troops, military alumni, and so forth. Additionally, OF COURSE putting yourself into a Al Queda propoganda game is going to get you noticed by the Feds.

And as I stated in the comments of the previous article, I (just like the Student President Julia Leusner) failed to see how the mod was relevant to the "message" Bilal claimed he was making. If the mod was anything close to what the original game was like, then it wouldn't have highlighted the atrocities the Iraqi people face in this war. The original game was mostly just a run-and-gun involving killing US troops and reaching the President. Did Bilal mod in scripted scenes of Iraqis suffering? Or did he just say, "hey, my brother was killed, time for revenge!"

Opinion pieces are fine, and it's great to generate awarness and dialog, but it really should make sense. Freedom of speech works a whole lot better when you use common sense to create your message.

I've said my piece regarding this before, and pretty much everyone has offered excellent points on both side.

The only thing I have to say, is that I'm sad that the RPI admins decided to nix the whole thing. It's a real shame. Not that I don't understand their position, but it's still a shame.

@Eville1
"The 1st amendment is freedom of speech as it pertains to being stiffled BY THE GOVERNMENT. Keep that one in mind at all times folks thank you for playing."

Saying that this a violation of his constitutional right to freedom of speech is different than saying that the institute does not support freedom of speech. The concept of supporting freedom of speech is the idea of allowing others to say what they want to say; the best way to put it "i may not agree with what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it". RPI in this case is not allowing the artist to say what he wants to say. No laws have been broken, the constitution has not been violated, but the concept of "freedom of speech" has still been slapped in the face. If you don't like what is being said then don't listen, but you should not stop the artist from speaking... cover your ears, not their mouth

@ Monte:

"If you don’t like what is being said then don’t listen, but you should not stop the artist from speaking… cover your ears, not their mouth"

Well, they're not stopping him from speaking, they're allegedly saying "we don't want you speaking on our private property". Which is their right. RPI was only one stop along a tour he's apparently making with this exhibit.

I agree that it isn't a denial of freedom of speech.

oops the above should read NOT bleeding hearts......

@Shady8x

"The university has every right to decide who they invite or un-invite."

Agreed.

But they shouldn't expouse their belief in free speech with the same breath. If they came out and said, "We feel a responsibility to our community to spend our school finances on work we deem to have a greater artistic value." I don't think it would make people so angry.

Seems like there is no freedom of Speech and Expression, because people are so offended by everythying....

Ah fear mongering, it makes the sheeple dumber than ever and they still do not care.

kurisu7885
true the greater point of terrorism is to change the average persons life in some way, anything after that s gravy.

The terrorists have given the US government everything they need to set democracy back 100 years.

so, im guessing were going to hell /w freedom of speech and expression

"relevant to national security". more like "relevant to our upcoming police state"

On one hand, it maybe censorship.

On the other hand, he may have screwed up when trying to prove his point in his work.

This artical faild to alude to the Al-Qaeda version was just a mod of an american game.

"Programmed by a team from Al-Qaeda's Global Islamic Media Front, Night of Bush Capturing is in fact a modded version of an older, US-made game, Quest for Saddam, released by Petrilla Entertainment in 2003. Al-Qaeda's coders swapped out the artwork and textures of this earlier game - made with the Torque Game Engine - replacing the crude representations of Arab soldiers and anti-Islamic propaganda for equally crude versions of American soldiers and anti-American propaganda. This straightforward re-skin turned what was intended to be a rallying, pro-Iraq war game into a diametrically-opposed (but curiously symmetrical) attack on George Bush, his foreign policy and the nation behind his presidency."
TAKEN FROM EUROGAMER.NET > http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=128537&page=1

It's an intresting comment that neither the games politics artical nor that in the washington post made any refference to this.

[...] A few months ago, a student in my town actually had the guts to do something, instead of simply talking about it, succeeding in triggering debate about art that will likely have much more of an effect than the Yale student’s hoax… [...]