GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

February 14, 2009 -

As GamePolitics reported this week, online retailer Amazon.com has blocked sales of RapeLay, a Japanese hentai game being offered on Amazon by an affiliated re-seller.

While many were upset by news of the game, some felt that Amazon's decision amounted to censorship.

What do you think?

Register your opinion in the GP poll at left.

 


Comments

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

So everyone should vote "no" because you believe all hell well break loose instead? Isn't that censorship in itself? As many have said the actual question is debatable and what does "right" actually mean, is Amazon morally right? Does Amazon have the right to decide what to and not to sell? Is it the right business decision for Amazon? Is it the right PR decision?


Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

I voted Yes solely because the developers never intended Rapelay to be sold outside of Japan.

岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

岩「…I can see why Hasselbeck's worried about fake guns killing fake people. afterall, she's a fake journalist on a fake news channel」

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

Hrrm. Well, they are a business, and this kind of negative attention, regardless of the fact that they themselves are not directly selling the game, could be considered bad for the site's image, and bad for sales.

Still, it seems that banning the sale of one item of a certain content and genre, but continuing to sell other items of similar content is silly, and I really hate the idea of something getting banned because people get offended, regardless of how nasty it is.

A good business and PR decision: I'll say yes.

A good free speech decision: No. I may dislike it, but no one can make me (or anyone else) play it.

A good moral/ethical decision: Relative. My morals are based heavily in liberty and freedoms, so to me, no.

Luckily, ther are still no rape games available or produced in America or the UK for people to get pissed about. Right?

 

-Remember kids, personal responsibility is for losers! -The Buck Stops Here.

Reality/////////////////////////////////////Fantasy. Seems like a pretty thick line to me...

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

Well, unless you consider flash games. And you know those anti-gamers do if they can get away with it.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

Actually there is plenty of games involving rape available in US. Just to give you some examples from Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Black-DVD-Game-Set/dp/B001IZHXOC/ref=sr_1_14...

http://www.amazon.com/Discipline-Record-Crusade-Pc-Game/dp/B0014SPSYA/re...

http://www.amazon.com/Adult-PC-Game-Crescendo/dp/B001F8JE9Y/ref=sr_1_7?i... (rape in a very negative context)

 

I think that Amazon has the right to decide what they want to be sold trough their site, but I can't help but feel that they are quite hypocrites by only removing two used copies of the one game while continuing selling other games involving rape if the rape was reason for removal.

I think the removal has been kind of blown out of proportion because they only removed two used copies. You can still get the game from Amazon.jp (http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/B000EQ5IAM/ref=nosim?ie=UTF8&redirect...) and other sites that are willing to ship it outside of Japan.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

Would Amazon actually know that these games contain rape? I find it highly unlikely that someone at headoffice plays all these games and watches all these films to moderate them.

I'd be interested to know what responce Amazon would make if someone were to submit a complaint or query pointing out this hypocrasy.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

Well, I suppose it depends on if you believe Amazon removed the games because they truely object to their content, or just because people were making a fuss.

If it's the former, then they should at the very least remove all other games containing rape from sale (and possibly other media containing rape too. If it's the latter then it's not hypocritical to allow the sale of the other games because their basis for removing the first one wasn't an ethical one, it was a PR one.

Of course, they're always going to claim it's the former, because that makes them look good.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

It's a complicated question to be reduced to a simple 'right'->yes/no.

Which perspective of 'right' is the one here? Right moral thing? Right short term buisness decision? Right long term buisness decision?   Right for the game industry?

Legally they were well within thier rights, period.

Moral? That is going to be very subjective.

Short term? Probably since it helps deflect current outrage.

Long term? Harder to say.  Without a clear policy on how much offense it takes relative to the commission they make from a seller, they have just oppened up a very arbitrary removal process and might have just killed their own safe harbor protection.

For the game industry?  Within any group struggling for protection there is always the tradeoff between stanind together with the more radical elements, or distancing one's self from them.   It is never an easy balance since you do it wrong and you make your opponent much stronger.  IMHO this again gets down to short term vs long term.. and in this case short term this probably helps the industry since it distances them from H games in the public's mind.. but on the other hand it also admits that the critics are right and some games shouldn't exist, esp ones geard to adults.. and once that door is open it is hard to shut again.  So long term, this was not the right move.

 

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

No. They have plenty of adult material, of the same type. Either they ban them all, or they don't ban anything at all.

I find pityful that they retired the game after a fucktard like Vaz did yet another performance for the press. My opinion of Leicester East goes lower every time I listen to any of his stupid rants.

I'm tired of all this hypocrisy and over-the-top political correctness. It's a game for adults, and adults can buy whatever they want (except pedophilia, of course).

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

Should you are against censorship, but agree with censoring child porn? It's amazing how many people see censorship as a bad thing and rant about it yet at the same time they agree with the censorship of certain things (such as child porn). I think people need to get over this "all censorship is bad" ideal and understand that it does have positive effects (such as helping protect children from abuse).

People talk about "freedom of speech" but then quickly realise that it is "freedom of speech" to a certain degree.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

As was stated above me. ^

I'm a huge advocate of non-censorship. I think there should not be any form of censorship except for self-censorship (because you are not forced into it, through laws and legal action and such). However, I dispise child porn.

Not because it is pornography, not because it is obscene, as I would love to have all obscenities laws done away with. But because, it is a child, not a consenting adult. Trying to turn it into "If you support freedom of speech, you support child porn" is something of red herring. Because it can be, and is, illegalized for other reasons.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

As I've said to the poster above; Rape is not consenting. If things, including ficticious things, are to be banned on the basis of all included parties concenting, then surely pornography that depicts or encourages rape aught also to be banned.

The only obvious objection is that they're actors, and that a child actor cannot possibly give consent to act in such a production. However, that then would leave it completely legal to have drawn or CG child porn. If you can't have art or CG child porn because of consent, why can you have rape art or CG?

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

"However, that then would leave it completely legal to have drawn or CG child porn."

Yes. I think that's the point.

"If you can't have art or CG child porn because of consent, why can you have rape art or CG?"

Who says you can't have art or CG child porn because of consent? Fictional characters don't really feel anything when their rights are violated.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

Sorry, I was under the impression that we were still talking about CG/art when people started talking about child porn and being against child porn.

 

However, would catering for someone who has a sexual attraction to children, or a sexual fetish to rape someone, not encourage such behaviour? Particularly if it is interactive and rewarding?

It is possible that it would be cathartic - ie that it would prevent that person from doing it in the real world because they can do it through the game. But then, would it not desensitize them?

 

Obviously your average person won't turn into a kiddy fiddler from playing such a game. It's someone that's already leaning towards it that then gets that behaviour reinforced by desensitization that I'd be worried about.

 

Would the censorship then become an issue of potentially protecting children (and women) or is that too far a step to make?

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

You understand, however, that is a very same argument, used against us. The idea of "desensitization." Except, for us, it's is violence, but you are using what is, at the core, the same argument.

If someone takes out such actions, it's not a matter of, "oh, they saw this, and decided to do it" no. Anything could've set them off. They are already in psychological trouble. And even then, if they are depraved enough, they will find ways to obtain what they want, illegally. Just because something becomes censored, doesn't mean it all goes away.

Take real child porn for example. It's illegal, but they still find a way to obtain it, and you still hear about the occasional sting operation against a group of child pornography producers/distributors.

Oh, and just in case it wasn't sarcasm (I'm actually being nice about this one): "Sorry, I was under the impression that we were still talking about CG/art when people started talking about child porn and being against child porn." The whole point being, there IS CG/art child porn. And it's legal because it is CG/art.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

It's not really the same argument though, the comparisons between GTA and Rapelay don't stick, why? Because simulated rape in pornography exists for sexual gratification (I understand Hentai is loaded with it and quite frankly I find it sick and want nothing to do with and I do wonder about the people that enjoy, whether or not I think it should exist is debatable though). If we get back to the original story of Rapelay, I find it sad that this will be used as an example to generalise over the video game industry when it is really an example of interactive pornography, and Amazon does not provide a public service in that it should protect the facade of "anti-censorship".

Since the introduction of the Internet paedophillia has seemingly grown, whether or not these people always had these tendencies before they saw child porn is debatable, but the fact that the imagery has unlocked or create more trouble stands. Porn is different from violence, it's for sexual gratification, you actually simulate similar experiences of the act through masturbation. Watching or playing violence you're not actually taking part in it; experiencing it, but with pornography you are to a much much greater level. We need to understand that sex (or rather porn) and violence are two different entities, before we start claiming that rape pornography is the same as the violence in GTA.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

You are using the same argument, though. Yes, sex and violence is different, but you are presenting the argument that a sexual game makes people, or encourages them, whatever, to perform real life sexual interactions. And, just by playing a rape game, does not mean you are taking part of it either. Even through masturbation, that is not taking part of it. That is enjoying it as it was intended.

That is the very same argument against us, that by playing violent things, it makes us violent. Let's say I play a first-person shooter, and decided, "you know, I feel like some target practice" and go out and shoot at targets, under your argument, that is comparable to masturbating after playing RapeLay.

" I do wonder about the people that enjoy" - and that right there, you are already assuming possible sexual deviancy.

They are the same at the very core of it all, and why? Because they are all fictitious. We play violent video games for entertainment, and some of us play sexual games for entertainment as well. True, it may be a different kind of entertainment, but entertainment nonetheless.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

It is the same argument, but the two (sex and violence) are two different set of emotions, you can't say that playing a violent video game does not make one violent therefore porn does not make one more likely to carry out the fantasy in real life, they're separate issues.

Porn addiction is now becoming a big problem, yet you don't hear the same of violence/gore addiction. Sexual gratification is completely different from gratification gained from violent games. In many cases people search out more extreme porn in which to gain their kicks from. I think people truly underestimate humanity's sexual instincts.

A point conveniently ignored was that since the growth of the Internet there has been a growth in paedophillia, clearly child porn has either helped create or given people the ability to reveal a nasty side of themselves. It's quite clear that certain types of porn have given rise to certain real life sex crimes. It's also well known that when people start mixing violence with sex it leads to very dangerous things (I'm sure you're fully aware of Ed Gein for example).

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

"A point conveniently ignored was that since the growth of the Internet there has been a growth in paedophillia, clearly child porn has either helped create or given people the ability to reveal a nasty side of themselves."

Earlier you said it has seemingly grown, but now you claim it as fact. Where is the statistical evidence for your claim that the Internet has led to an increase in child molestation? Where is the evidence that any kind of pornography has "given rise to certain real life sex crimes"?

You sound like Jack Thompson claiming that violent video games have given rise to certain real life murders, and you provide just as much evidence.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

First, yes, they are separeate issues, but you are still wrong. They are the same argument, and you can come to the same conclusions, because both are fantasies, violence and sex, regardless of the medium. They are only separate once you bring them into physical being, once you actually commit an act of sex or violence.

And furthermore, perhaps it is easier nowdays to TRACE pedophilia, with new technologies. But your whole argument is like you are trying to say, the Internet makes pedophiliacs. No, that is not the case. The Internet, it just makes it easier for those who are already pedophiliacs to get their stuff. But on the same hand, it also could arguably make it easier to catch them as well.

Overall, however, it doesn't matter. You are using the same argument they are using, and it does not matter what the medium is. I could replace "rape" or "pedophilia" with "assault" or "murder" and it will still be the same argument. You are trying to split the argument by saying these are completely different, and while yes, they are technically different at face value, they both come down to one single truth. They are fictitious fantasies.

Playing/watching "X" leads into performing "Y" in real life. Those who play violent games and then kill people, and those who watch porn then go out and rape people, they were not turned into it by doing "X" but rather, they were already mentally troubled. If they become addicted to something, that is a personal mental issue, that means they already had that kind of addictive personality, and just happened to be porn, though it could have been any number of things.

"It's quite clear that certain types of porn have given rise to certain real life sex crimes." And no, it is not. If it is so clear, provide solid evidence of this. Show consistent, scientific, data of this. Show evidence, that these "certain types of porn" can turn an ordinary, healthy person into some time of sexual criminal, someone who had not already had mental problems, developmental issues, or any other kind of possible, internal, influence.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

And as I said, in the US, technically, it IS legal.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

@Littlemog: Ah, THAT, is where you are wrong. In the US, you can have art or CG hentai. It's called lolicon or shotacon (depending on the sex of who is the child), it's a legit genre of hentai, and there is argument over its protection, as technically, it does have artistic value hence not obscene under the Miller Test, therefore, protected by First Amendment laws.

And no. I do not think, it should be banned, if it depicts rape. It aught NOT be banned because it still has value. Furthermore, you cannot present to me that pornography "encourages" rape, unless it comes out and says GO RAPE PEOPLE! It is a sexual fantasy, and nothing more.

@State: I would enjoy it if you do not twist my argument around, as that is exactly what you are doing. You are right, I did say child pornography should be illegal. But ONLY because they are a minor. And even then, as they grow older, I personally feel, it becomes more and more of a grey area. At age 16, you could argue they are able to concent rationally as at that age, in our modern time, they probably understand sex.

To my case, all censorship aside from self-censorship (as, you chose to censor yourself), but even then I do not like it, while not necessarily "bad" per say, I do not agree to it. For example, if you wanted to go into the middle of Detroit, and rally forth the KKK, go ahead. That is within your right. Just as it is within the right of everyone else to gather together to rally against them, so long as it is non-violent.

And for the record, I support all forms of hentai and pornography. Sure, I don't watch a lot of it, and some of it down right creeps me out, but I still say it has the right to exist, unless a crime was committed. Such as actually raping someone, and distributing it as porn.

Overall, free speech IS a double-edged sword. Use it irresponsibly, and it may well come back to bite you in the ass.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

So what is your opinion on beheading videos (filmed illegal actions) then? To censor or not to censor?

From my understanding you don't mind some censoring (as long as it's not called that), by making the content in it illegal, at the end of the day it's still censoring. Perhaps if you didn't perceive to hold such morals you wouldn't mind admitting that some censorship is good (it's not a black and white issue), and this is what annoys me with people stating "all censorship is bad... but except when dealing with...". It's not twisting an argument it's just showing you all the parts to it, and for you it's unpalatable and have to say the argument has been twisted or whatever, it's hard for you to acknowledge that there are positives to censorship and you simply sound hypocritical.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

Except, you are stretching the argument. You are using a very extreme example. So I will break it down.

1. Said example would not be industry made, but rather, by an individual or group. Such a video would not usually be made, as some form of protest in favor of rights or freedom of speech, but rather, a message to others. A tactic of intimidation. So I highly doubt they would care if it was censored or not, as censorship is not the issue with this video; it's why did they behead the person, what is their cause? This is different to, say, pornpgraphy, as porngraphy has only one reason; pleasure. Entertainment.

2. You assume I believe censorship is black and white. No, I do not believe that. If anything, you are the one using a black and white fallacy, in that: A). You either support censorship, and hence morally right, or B). you do not support censorship, and are not only morally wrong, but also a hypocrite.

Just because I disapprove of any censorship, does not mean I see it as black and white. There is also responsibilities that come into play. For example, if someone frequently calls blacks, niggers, they must be held responsible for it. I would never believe that Freedom of Speech is some kind of way to say whatever you want, and never get in trouble.

The reason I say an exclusion to "self-censorship" is because I cannot judge a person on that. Well, I could, but I refuse to do so. While I can express opinion saying I wish they had not, I will not say, "You are wrong for doing so!"

3. Honestly? I would not want it censored. The world is a violent, violent place. While I would understand why there would be censorship, as I'm sure not many people on our side of the world would be able to handle something like that without freaking out, I believe that is something that people just have to get used to. In order to fight violence, you must get used to the violence. Like a surgeon, how can you perform surgery if you get squimish at the sight of blood?

While I would disapprove of censoring it, I would certainly understand their reasons. And perhaps you should understand, there are other logics outside of yours, that can be argued to be right, as what is "right" is subjective.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

Uou talk about a hatred of censorship, child pornography is censored, but you use a get-out clause by saying that it should be made illegal through other means, but at the end of the day that is still censorship. I am stating that not all censorship is bad and that it is not a black and white issue, there are simply too many people stating "all censorship is bad" when it simply isn't and child pornography is case in point (censorship exists to help protect children).

The reason why a game about sexual situations with children is not allowed is because sex with a minor is not allowed at all, it doesn't matter whether consent exists or not. And quite frankly that is a game (or rather interactive pornography) that I wish never to see made and it would make me question the thoughts of the people that made it.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

I believe murder is none consenting but it still happens a lot in all forms of media. I don’t know about you folks but I would rather be raped than murdered and then maybe raped...  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

If we take an example of two games, side by side, we see that the rape game is a lot more realistic:

GTA seems to be the big one people are comparing; it hasn't got the most brilliant AI, there's no forensics to track you back to where you came from, there's comic relief in most of it.

The rape game is (at least, I've read that it is) entirely serious. It's realistic enough to have blood when you rape a virgin, and detailed down to the tears in the kid's eyes. (I'm going by wikipedia and Something Awful here). You don't get caught by the police, somewhat like GTA if you're successful, but in Rapelay it's not because the AI is stupid, it's because, like most rape victims, they're too scared to go to the police.

Additionally, the rules in the real world are established much, much more when it comes to murder than rape. At what age did you first hear "murder", and at what age, "Rape"? (...if rape was the first then I've just footbulletted, but lets take the average kid)

So while we play GTA, the majority of us know, 100% that killing is wrong, this is only a catharcism. I would have known that when I was 5 (and allowed to play such games. Er. Ahem) The potential problem comes with a game like Manhunt, where you get rewarded for killing innocents so if you already have a screw loose, that just makes it worse.

Sexual rules of conduct are established much, much later in life for most people (say, teenage years). Therefore the number of people that aren't 100% on conduct is slightly higher. Not to mention rape is much more difficult to prove and therefore to 1- get justice and 2- prevent the rapist attacking again. Teenagers that aren't taught properly (and increasingly they aren't) learn these 'rules' through heresay, which can be skewed especially where real consent is concerned.

I know far, far more people that have been raped or have family that have been raped, than have been murdered. Statistics might suggest otherwise, but ~8/10 of these people never reported it.

 

Once you start getting society to understand the rules of sexual conduct a bit better, then it's safer to sit "sexual violence" and "violence" next to each other.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

The reason child porn is illegal is because it doesn't involve consenting adults.  The worst thing anyone can do is force a child (or anybody unable to give informed consent) to do anything sexually.

As long as consenting adults are involved, I don't care.

One thing to keep in mind: the rights of one person can never override the rights of another.  A pedophile's right to freedom of expression does not come before a child's right to be free from abuse.

______________________________________________________________________ mykalgaidin.gamerdna.com

______________________________________________________________________ mykalgaidin.gamerdna.com

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

The very definition of rape is that the victim isn't consenting. If they consent (without coersion), it's not rape: it's sex.

In this case, why is it ok to have a rape game with adult women, but not have a child porn game?

I've heard through other comments (I can't cite the accuracy) one of the characters of this game is a minor anyway. My previous question still stands, though.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

"The very definition of rape is that the victim isn't consenting. If they consent (without coersion), it's not rape: it's sex."

Except that he's talking about what's going on behind the scenes, not what seems to be happening in front of the cameras. That's what make-believe is all about: doing one thing while pretending that it's another. As long as no real children are involved in its production, I see nothing ethically wrong with it.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

So what would your opinion be of a game that depicted paedophillia, as no really child would be harmed, would you consider that okay or would you want that censored? After all the game in question depicts rape for the purpose of men to masturbate over (there's no consent there, although again it is acted and therefore not real).

But really the point is this: Censorship is not a black and white issue (there are times when quite rightfully it is required, and times when it shouldn't exist). For people that claim all too quickly that all censorship is bad and that freedom of speech should always be allowed need to remember one thing, it does have its positives.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

"So what would your opinion be of a game that depicted paedophillia, as no really child would be harmed, would you consider that okay or would you want that censored?"

I would consider it okay for it to not be censored, and not okay for it to be censored. The fact that "no real child would be harmed" leads me to say this without reservation.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

On a personal level, anything depicting pedophilia is abhorrent.  But I find it interesting that you are arguing that censorship isn't a black and white issue (a statement I agree with) yet expecting me to give you black and white answers.  If I answer yes, it should be, you'd come back with "you're going against your own argument".  If I answer no, it shouldn't be, you'd say that I was condoning child pornography, something that offends me to my very core.

Life itself isn't black and white.  You can't hold a checklist of what's right and wrong up to every single situation that arises.  There are very few hard and fast answers.  Grey areas abound, and it's up to each of us as thinking individuals navigate those areas.

______________________________________________________________________ mykalgaidin.gamerdna.com

______________________________________________________________________ mykalgaidin.gamerdna.com

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

To those citing the first amendment, what does the first amendment have to do with this? The seller may have been US based, but it was being sold to the UK on Amazon.co.uk, which is hosted on a network cluster in Ireland.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

really?

from what i read there were 2 copies on amazon.com. (not co.uk) something which made Vaz's original claims of it being widely available even more bizaare

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

The only problem I have with this whole debate is the idea that any private organization can "censor" anything.  There is only one entity that can "censor" anything and that is the Government.  Fortunately, we have the First Amendment to protect us from censorship.

It boils down to this: Amazon's site, Amazon's call.

______________________________________________________________________ mykalgaidin.gamerdna.com

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

"The only problem I have with this whole debate is the idea that any private organization can "censor" anything."

Never heard of [TV] network censors, have you?

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

These "censors" are enforcing regulations put in place by the FCC (a branch of the government).

______________________________________________________________________ mykalgaidin.gamerdna.com

______________________________________________________________________ mykalgaidin.gamerdna.com

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

That's true to some degree, but not entirely. Different TV networks have different "standards and practices" with regard to censorship, and they'll often go beyond the FCC's regulations in prohibiting certain kinds of content. Network censors are not government agents, so while it's correct to say that their job is "necessary" due to FCC-mandated censorship, we can't really blame all of a network censor's decisions on the government.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

True, but if the FCC didn't mandate certain standards and practices, it's my guess that there would be little to no censorship on television, depending on the cultural mores of the day.  However, it could be said that FCC regulations are a response to cultural pressure to control the content of television.

______________________________________________________________________ mykalgaidin.gamerdna.com

______________________________________________________________________ mykalgaidin.gamerdna.com

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

Perhaps there wouldn't be official censors, but there still would be pressure from advertisers to restrict the kinds of content allowed on the air. Call it censorship or not, the end result is still that certain kinds of content don't get to air.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

That would fall under cultural dictates, not governmental regulation.  Advertisers will do anything to sell their product.

______________________________________________________________________ mykalgaidin.gamerdna.com

______________________________________________________________________ mykalgaidin.gamerdna.com

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

It wouldn't be government regulation, but the content would still be absent from that particular network. Those who wish to view the supressed content would have to go elsewhere, just like they have to do now.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

So, if the content is censored, how is it still available for consumption?

______________________________________________________________________ mykalgaidin.gamerdna.com

______________________________________________________________________ mykalgaidin.gamerdna.com

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

It would depend on who owned the right to the show. If the network owned the rights, it's possible the supressed material would never be filmed in the first place, existing only in the form of a script. In that case, it would not be available for consumption. On the other hand, for stuff that were merely "edited for content" from an uncensored source, it would be a matter of buying it on DVD or watching it on a different channel.

Exactly like it works now, except the government would have nothing to do with it.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

"The only problem I have with this whole debate is the idea that any private organization can "censor" anything.  There is only one entity that can "censor" anything and that is the Government. "

Rubbish!  Anyone who has control over the distribution of a thing can censor it.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

Not really.  If a company controls it's own website, that company is exercising it's First Amendment rights.  The government (as an entity) is not covered under the First Amendment, which defines our protected modes of communication as citizens.

Here's the text: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It defines "Congress" (i.e. the government) as the entity that is prohibited from restricting the rights (censoring) of the citizens (the people).  It doesn't mention corporations.

______________________________________________________________________ mykalgaidin.gamerdna.com

______________________________________________________________________ mykalgaidin.gamerdna.com

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

Nobody here is suggesting that Amazon should be forced to carry this game.

You speak as if censorship is synonymous with the illegal supression of speech, but in fact the word "censor" is far older than the first amendment, dating back to a time when censorship by governments was perfectly legal. The fact that censorship is now legally practiced by corporations doesn't change the fact that it's censorship.

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

You have a point.  I guess the point I was trying to make is that Amazon has the right to censor material on their own property.  I don't agree with it, but there it is.

______________________________________________________________________ mykalgaidin.gamerdna.com

______________________________________________________________________ mykalgaidin.gamerdna.com

Re: GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

So you believe that Amazon should be forced to sell this product simple to protect the pretense of "freedom of speech". It seems to me that you want everyone to be forced to accept and be forced to do certain things because if they don't they are taking part in censorship. You seem to be saying that Amazon has this power over the American people that they control the content that people can get their hands on, and by Amazon deciding not to sell a product they are preventing the American population from getting hold of such item.

Are you saying that a food shop that doesn't sell guns is taking part in self-censorship? Are you saying that someone who decides not to swear is taking part in self-censorship?

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will we ever get Half-Life 3?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Papa MidnightThe term "lovers" might be pushing it given the apparent time frame, but I understand what you're saying. Even if they were friends at the time, then that may present impropiety. However, that calls for a Magic-8-Ball level of speculation.10/02/2014 - 10:26am
Krono@Midnight She was a guest on an RPS show he cohosted here: http://goo.gl/QxljSG10/02/2014 - 10:24am
prh99Personally I'd say her original piece on Bronies was far more ethically questionable. Though for different reasons.10/02/2014 - 10:20am
Krono@Midnight On the Grayson relationship? For starters it depends on how long they were friends before they were lovers. Nathan gave Depression Quest top billing back in this article: http://goo.gl/tqGsnW10/02/2014 - 10:20am
Papa MidnightIf said journalist, however, is placed into a position where they have to write about matters dealing with DICE, then yes, a COI is present and should be declared.10/02/2014 - 10:18am
Papa MidnightHypothetically, if a developer from DICE starts dating a tech journalist from CNN tomorrow, so long as said CNN journalist is not (in)directly involved in any editorial process regarding matters dealing with DICE, there's no need to declare a COI.10/02/2014 - 10:18am
Papa MidnightThere's no need for it. A declaration of a Conflict of Interest is only necessary in the event that the parties may be placed into a situation where the conflict may become a factor.10/02/2014 - 10:16am
Krono@prh99 It was after #gamergate. There was a post on r/games that called out the lack of disclosure.10/02/2014 - 10:12am
Papa MidnightKrono: If the purpose of such was to expose some conflict of interest, I am not sure what the purpose or end objective was. Specifically, said relationship had not produced any works positive or otherwise. Where's the beef?10/02/2014 - 10:09am
prh99I don't know, the update isn't dated. Also, actual attempt at deception or absent mindedness? "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"10/02/2014 - 10:06am
Krono@prh99 disclosed in an update after #gamergate noticed and called it out.10/02/2014 - 10:04am
Papa MidnightDriving people from their homes. e-Letter bombing (for all practical intents and purposes) advertisers like they're the FCC after a certain Superbowl half-time show to pull advertising from a media outlet for the crime of having an opinion?10/02/2014 - 10:00am
Papa MidnightIt's hard to drape yourself in the glory of your righteous campaign when you're exposing the personal information of a person, and following up with a campaign of harassment (organised or ortherwise). 12 year olds calling your personal cell for Five Guys?10/02/2014 - 9:58am
prh99http://kotaku.com/anna-anthropy-designer-behind-dys4ia-and-triad-and-au-1448084641 <--relationship disclosed10/02/2014 - 9:57am
Papa MidnightEven to this day, that remains the primary citation of those embarking in it. That said, the whole "it's not about harrassment" thing is comparable to making an extremely racist statement, then following up by saying "but I'm not a racist."10/02/2014 - 9:56am
Papa MidnightI think EZK is more spot-on. This may have carried on far beyond it's genesis, but the true driving force of this whole astroturfing campaign was the angst of an ex-boyfriend of Zoe Quinn's.10/02/2014 - 9:54am
KronoAnd that's off the top of my head, specific to Kotaku.10/02/2014 - 9:54am
E. Zachary KnightKrono, yet no one can actually point at any "positive reviews" or otehr press given Quinn by Grayson.10/02/2014 - 9:53am
KronoBeyond that you have Patricia Hernandez writing reviews for, and plugging Anna Anthropy's work. Anna being Patricia's friend and former roomate.10/02/2014 - 9:52am
Sleaker@EZK - I believe there were a few more related to Patreon, and IGF. But regardless of the disclosure thing, that was only half of my statement, and I'm simply trying to speak on the reasons why GG got popular. But you sidestepped my last question there...10/02/2014 - 9:50am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician