DIGITISER
  • MAIN PAGE
  • Features
  • Videos
  • Game Reviews
  • FAQ

FREE THE SPEECH? by Mr Biffo

20/1/2015

10 Comments

 
Picture
Yesterday, an Iranian newspaper was closed down after apparently expressing solidarity with Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine at the centre of the horrific attacks in Paris a couple of weeks ago. 

Barely a month on from its debut issue, the reformist Mardom-e-Emrooz printed a front-page photograph of George Clooney, along with the headline "I Am Charlie Too". Though the Iranian government had earlier condemned the Charlie Hebdo killings, the country's culture ministry moved quickly to suspend the paper's licence in accordance with Islamic law, which bans depictions of the prophet Muhammed. 

It's a sharp reminder - as if one were needed - of the difference between the West and the Islamic world, when it comes to free speech. 

While I wouldn't for a second want to draw a direct parallel between what happened with Charlie Hebdo and debates about civil liberties, free speech and artistic expression in video games, that debate is - nonetheless - particularly prevalent in the games industry right now. 

THE CENSORSHIP OF OZ

As we reported upon recently, an Australian supermarket chain pulled Grand Theft Auto V from its shelves, following a petition that raised nearly 45,000 signatures, and just last week the country's ratings board refused to grant an age rating to Hotline Miami 2, effectively banning it from sale. 


And meanwhile, over in the US of America, Destructive Creations' Hatred - a game that was pulled from the Steam online game's service (following swiftly-denied allegations that one or more of the development team were neo-Nazi sympathisers), before being reinstated by Steam boss Gabe Newell - became only the second game in the country's history to be rated Adults Only (after GTA developer Rockstar's Manhunt 2).

Notably, in 2011, California passed a law banning the sale of violent video games to minors, making it a requirement that all violent games sold in the state be slapped with an '18' label - something that has been standard in the UK for years. 

However, following an outcry, the ruling was passed to America's Supreme Court. Subsequently, they overruled the legislation, declaring that violent video games are protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution - the one which protects the freedom of speech.

"Disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression,” said the Supreme Court's ruling. Violent video games are "as entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature."

Responsibility for whether or not minors would play violent games was essentially awarded to parents. 

THIS IS NOT AMERICAN

Not being American, not living in a country that has a formal constitution, I confess that I struggle with elements of American legislation, and the prevailing resistance to Big Government interference. Yet British commentators have a tendency to regret it when casting their external eye on the way America is run - Piers Morgan basically fled the country with his tail between his legs after sticking his oar into the gun control debate.


That said, it seems that America's dedication to preserving the right to free speech only applies in certain circumstances - a 2009 YouGov poll suggested that the American population was split almost evenly when it came to whether or not those who publicly advocate genocide or hatred based on race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation should be punished by law. In short, 50% of those polled seemed happy to ignore those First Amendment rights when it suited.

But whatever. As stated, it isn't really for me to get involved. I don't know what it's like to be American. I grew up in a country where the government nanny us, apparently. The only time I've seen an actual gun, let alone also handle one, was in Florida - visiting a shooting range, off to the side of a strip mall gun shop (next door to a dry cleaners). Two minutes after flashing my passport I was handling a chain-fed M60 and blasting away at targets shaped like Muslim "terrorists"... 

However, following the debate in recent weeks as to whether or not violent games should be restricted or banned outright - with Australia on one side of the fence and America on the other - I no longer know how I feel when it comes to games that push at what some view as the boundaries of taste and decency. 

Picture
SWITCH IT OFF

What I am sure of is this: the night after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, I was playing GTAV and had to switch it off. I accidentally, ran over a couple of pedestrians - as it's all too easy to do - and couldn't shake the police tail. Frustrated, I ended up stopping the car, and blasted away at the pursuing cops with my grenade launcher. 


And suddenly it was all a bit too real. Even though I was playing alone, it felt disrespectful and distasteful. It was a few days before I went back to the game - but that moment still lingers, at the back of my awareness, whenever I fire it up.

And what's really weird is that I've never previously been bothered by the killing in GTA, just its depiction of women and minorities. As I've stated before on here, I do, however, have some issue with the - admittedly brief - moment of apparent sexual assault in Hotline Miami 2 and some of the casual misogyny in GTAV. Does that make me a hypocrite? Or does it just mean something far simpler: that some things bother me, and other things don't, because that's how I'm wired? Y'know... basically, a
m I just dripping with latent liberal guilt?

As I said somewhere in the comments section of this site, it's probably as much to do with the fact that I've never known anyone who's been blown away by a shotgun, but, depressingly, I do know too many people - women - who've been victims of abuse. It's all a little too close to home, and at the end of the day we all draw our own personal lines in the sand. Having people I care about who - because of their first-hand experience - find such content bothersome, and affecting, I want them to feel safe and protected.

But is it enough to just make a personal rule, when there exist games, or other creative endeavours, which - quite evidently - do make other people feel less safe in the world? Should the right to be able to play any game, regardless of its content, be acceptable? Or should some games be restricted, or withdrawn? What if Hatred featured a Muslim lead character? What if it was a man being shot and raped in Hotline Miami 2? Or a child?

These aren't meant to be judgements. These are genuinely open questions, because I'm interested in the debate, and I'm finding my position less certain than it once was. I don't know where I stand.

Picture
FREEBOY STRAUSS

When Grand Theft Auto V was pulled from Australia's Target and Kmart stores, the excellently-named Strauss Kelnick, CEO of Take Two Interactive, the game's publisher, said: "Interactive entertainment is today's most compelling art form and shares the same creative freedom as books, television and movies. I stand behind our products, the people who create them, and the consumers who play them."  

Ultimately, that's seemingly what it boils down to - there are tens of millions of consumers worldwide who aren't remotely bothered by GTAV. Or, certainly, are not sufficiently bothered to want it banned. There are lots of people who want to play Hatred - and who will defend their right to be able to play Hatred (sometimes even if they don't want to actually play Hatred). 

Whether or not you see either game as a work of art, or whether you're repulsed by them or not, it's feels important to accept the right of other people to want to play them, and of people to want to create them. I can see the point of view of those who feel it's a slippery slope, once you start venturing too far down the road of censorship.

By the same token, people have every right to be repulsed, disturbed or upset, and not want to be exposed to such games.

And that's where I'm struggling - there are elements of GTAV I find problematic. But that's so balanced out by what an achievement it is, that I want to play it. And, certainly, some of what I like about the game - I love that it's a sandbox shoot 'em up set in a convincingly real world - would, in the eyes of some, make me a massive hypocrite for not liking some of the other elements. I mean, what could be worse than shooting someone in the back, right? 

By the same token, I'm pretty sure that a game like Hatred isn't for me. Again, I realise the hypocrisy - I wouldn't have a problem with it if there was some sort of softened, fantasy context for all the shooting: such as if you were blasting away at zombies, or such like. But how much of a difference does doing that actually make to any moral context?

NOT A DEVELOPER

I'm not a games developer, but I'm pretty sure if I were that the games I'd develop wouldn't be along the lines of Hatred. For me, there's enough grimness in the world as it is - I don't want to pretend I'm part of it, or contribute to it. And, for me, I'm uncomfortable that we exist in a Western society that could produce entertainment of that nature. 

But then - as I type that - I'm already Gollum-ing back round to say... get over yourself. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you should impose that on others. I mean, I hate broccoli - but I can respect the rights of other people to eat it, even if the smell of it cooking makes me retch. If there were people out there who wanted to take away my right to play, I dunno, Monster Dash on my iPhone - because they once got roared at by a yeti - I'd probably feel pretty stoked up and irritated too.


So... that's it really. It's all a bit of a non-conclusive waffle, because that's where my head is at. Jury's out as far as I go, and I think it's time for me to step back and let the debates play out the way they play out. I don't feel sufficiently informed to come down on any one side of the fence. I just feel what I feel, and I don't think it's for me to impose that on others.

There's always going to be two camps to everything, and people are only ever going to come at things from their viewpoint - their own personal jumble of feelings, and experiences, and sense of self. Whether you want something banned, or object to something, or whether you want to exercise your right to do whatever you want do, I hope at least that respect for others comes into the equation. It's not much of an ask.

10 Comments
The School Boy
20/1/2015 06:22:35 am

Well said. I think.

Reply
Mr Smith
20/1/2015 06:50:07 am

The only conclusion I have after what has been at least a couple of years worth of focused inspection on games, is that I want to retreat into the shadowy velvet duvet of ignorance that we had in the past, before things like "ludology" were a thing.

I used to be one of those that argued that games are art and should be treated and examined equally by the mainstream (they're just as legitimate as everything else - please, PLEASE look at them!). This desire for games to be treated equally has actually backfired though, initiating an almost Eye-of-Sauron like gaze where now everything is scrutinised, measured and complained about, by the media, academics and people with only a passing interest in games, and it's having a knock-on affect for creators who seem to bend themselves to the loudest voices, even if they're only a minority.

If you deeply trawl the last 30 years you can find other examples of what is present in GTAV and Hotline Miami 2, perhaps in some instances worse examples. Often with less defined visuals, though there are a few FMV games where the violence and sex is literally photorealistic.

But no one seemed to take much notice, and when they did take notice (Mortal Kombat and Night Trap), it was fairly tame examples. The really trashy stuff was ignored or in limited availability and didn't seem to result in much fuss. You'd have the odd Daily Mail headline about "Nintendo killing my son", but players and devs ignored it, and for the most part there were no all-seeing eyes on us.

If someone wants to expose themselves to an orchestrated fiction or narrative, whatever the medium is (interactive or not), and are of legal age, I sincerely do not care if they choose to or what they choose to consume. Watch the pain olympics if you want to - I don't care as long as no one interferes with my access to [insert consensual legal/fictional media here].

I don't want to participate in the debates, or even know of their existence them, because to acknowledge them is to feed the social media fire around them. It's like Cthulu - once I know of Chtulu, then Cthulu knows of me, and now I just want to unknown everything about the ancient ones so that we can all be left alone. Social media and things like Twitter are echo chambers which magnify voices which - during the older days - I would not even have been aware of, nor would developers. I miss that innocence. That unaffected naked kind of perception. That clandestine feeling of limitlessness by virtue of being ignored by others.

Now everybody is part of the club and we're all talking about it all the time and everyone just keeps shouting at each other, and the people shouting the loudest are those saying everyone else is being politically incorrect and they say that now everyone is in the room the room needs to cater to everyone, but everyone wants to set fire to everyone else who isn't them.

Games were my retreat into an already ostracised social sphere where no one judged or cared - and when they did judge it was over trivialities, like RAM size, or owning an Amiga. But people could - and indeed did - mostly whatever they liked.

I rather like what Oscar Wilde said on the arts:
"The work of art is to dominate the spectator: the spectator is not to dominate the work of art."

Too long; didn't read version:
I don't like the fact that everyone keeps staring at the baby now that it's born, and saying what it should do with its life. The only solution, to protect it, is to try to push it back into the womb.

Reply
Mr Smith
20/1/2015 06:58:19 am

This image reflects my thoughts nicely. The little guy is the 16-bit and earlier days. The next one is 32-bit. The third apeman is the PS2-era, and the talking character is the PS3/X360 and beyond era.

http://i.imgur.com/UuMDv.jpg

Reply
Mr Biffo
20/1/2015 09:18:19 am

Well made, well written, point of view, Mr Smith. Comment of the week!

Reply
George
20/1/2015 07:08:21 am

I personally couldn't care less what content is in a game, except to the extent that I be given the opportunity to refuse it. That might mean refusal to even acknowledge a review, or refusal to purchase the game, or disabling certain content options, or avoiding a particular course of action in the game itself. Let me choose where to draw the line.

If that choice is taken away, the need for me to be capable of making similar choices withers and dies. I think this is the more dangerous scenario, just as a dull kitchen knife is more likely to slip and cut you than a sharp one. The moral compass requires regular maintenance in the form of exercising good judgement..

Treat me like an adult and I am more likely to behave like one. I am more capable of knowing what's right and proper for me and my family than any censoring body.

Reply
Lee
22/1/2015 12:47:48 am

This.

I know it's a difficult balance to strike, but if a society is going to be based on values such as freedom and the freedom to voice your opinion without fear of retribution, then you can't automatically default to a position of regulation.

Games as with literature, films & TV, art and music, shouldn't be heavily regulated by a central organisation to the point where distasteful content can be held back from the market; the regulation should be done by the individual or, in the case of children, by the responsible adult(s).

If we want to live in a world where people can say what they want, then we have to accept the whole package; warts and all.

Reply
Superbeast 37
20/1/2015 07:32:16 am

Anyone who has done any kind of development (even basic programming on a speccy) won't be the slightest bit bothered by anything in GTA.

Once you know roughly how the "magic" works you just see it as pixels. I could shoot virtual cops and virtual pedestrians all day long, even after a major news event, and not bat an eyelid.

I have no sensitivity at all to shooting pixels, even those that are well animated and voiced.

Ask me to throw a teddy bear in the bin though and I hesitate!

Reply
Gaijintendo
20/1/2015 10:13:18 am

Can we really have freedom of speech if you are only allowed to hold a view or oppose it? Surely a freedom of "two" is risible!

"YOU ARE FREE TO CHOOSE DIET DR. PEPPER OR FANTA MELON SODA" Doesn't seem so free now, does it? (Fanta Melon Soda, please).

We need more soft-line religious indifferots.

I happen to LOVE authority. I once said to my partner of the time, that the border guard between China and Mongolia was my ideal woman. I almost wish I didn't have a visa. She looked Russian. Maybe it was the Mongolian Russian border. I forget.

I think the problem is we think people with opposing views are stupid, because it makes us feel better about our opinions. Sometimes they are actually perfectly valid opinions, just not yours. Stop shitting your pants over it.

My "ex" got quite upset at that passport check comment. Which seems silly given we were going to break up in a year.

You see the guy from Fry and Laurie's face on a thing with a quote chastising people who get offended - and that is half of the problem. Someone is bound to be offended at porn. Even the kind of porn you really like. And these days the government wont let you look at it!?

What happens next? Many expensive holidays to Ulan Bator by train, probably!

Reply
Monsieur Milk
20/1/2015 06:28:52 pm

I'm emotionally conflicted about my curiosity of the kinds of dirty sex talk you would use.

"Stamp that page baby!"

"Stare at me fiercely for hours before denying me entry... Oh YEAH!"

Reply
Chap's chaps
21/1/2015 12:35:28 pm

I think you need to take each case on its merits, otherwise you risk letting the current debate make your head spin. Part of me would like to go back to the days when I was blissfully unaware, but a much larger part of me wants to engage and learn about stuff. Besides, the past is another coconut. The milk went rancid long ago and it‘s unwise to drink too deeply from it. Er anyway…

Given that:

1. Violence and harmful representations of women in games are claimed to be harmful to society (There are publicly available studies both seeming to prove and disprove this theory). It’s tricky because this damage is presented as being incremental and happening over time, so it’s hard to link cause and effect..

2. Games are an art form.

It follows that:

We must decide what is more important: Stopping the spread of negative media claimed to be harmful to society, or giving people access to a work of art.

Nobody has the right not to be offended, but if there is some validity in their claims then we need to open up the debate, go in with an open mind and test those arguments. Not go in looking to find fault, but certainly asking some probing questions.

Perhaps there are actually some titles where the entertainment/artistic value of their existence is outweighed by the damage they could cause? I think Hatred is on dodgy ground: http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/18/7417045/hatred-free-speech-and-one-developers-connections-with-polands-far

HOWEVER

It’s important to know who you are engaging with. When people say they want to ‘have a conversation’ around a subject, sometimes what they really mean is they want to talk at you until you uncritically accept their viewpoint. Me no likey this. Don’t bother with those people because like all good fanatics they can’t change the subject and they won’t change their minds. They believe they have the absolute truth. Politely make your excuses and back out that door. The ‘have a conversation’ line is also useful for those who don’t want to make their views known but want to push people towards them via sophistry.

See for example a certain interview a prominent games ‘developer’ gave with the Daily Mirror (the flipping Mirror!) in which she further misrepresented Hotline Miami 2 after the scuzzy journo had finished doing the very same with his man word lies. This ties into why:

CENSORSHIP AS A FIRST RESORT IS WRONG

Hotline Miami 2. Australia. IMO an unfair ruling. WHY? The ACB misrepresented the game: http://www.gamesradar.com/why-hotline-miami-2s-australian-ban-worrying-it-confusing/ The scene as described by the board bears little/no reality to the actual gameplay scene. That really bears thinking about as this game is what formed the crux of the Aussie board’s decision to ban HM2.

The HM2 scene works as both a critique on the Hollywood habit of sensationalising real life stories (it plays as a luridly inaccurate film-set retelling of a scene from the first game) and a comment on the line between player and character (it‘s an in-game film within the game). How responsible for a character’s actions are you, even when they are not even real in-game? In other words, it is possible to make a strong(ish) case for artistic merit.

That is the problem with this form of inflexible censorship. It treats everything at face value. It seems unable to deal with subtext, nuance or sly wit. Given the HM developers have previously displayed all of these, surely they deserve the benefit of the doubt? Especially when they put an opt-out sexual violence trigger warning at the start of the game (which is very rarely reported).

The scene really doesn’t seem to be in there just to court controversy and drum up sales (note: the developer has advised Australian fans that he is happy with them pirating the game. He just wants people to play it. Keeping the scene in really does look like an artistic decision).

Where is the recourse for the developer in this scenario? Does the ACB have an internal appeals process? From what I’ve read, the only option is the courts. There should be more stages and degrees in the process to ensure potential sensationalism and misreading by the board can be addressed.

In its current form this is the worst sort of draconian, authoritarian censorship and should be fought, mocked and ridiculed.

GTA: V is an interesting case. I don’t think you are a hypocrite - it is possible to like something and find elements of it problematic at the same time. I had the same reaction to GTA: V. In this case I understand it was a petition that lead to the game being removed from two retailers. I’ve honestly less of a problem with this as the stores are private companies who have the right to protect their image by controlling what they choose to stock. I don’t agree with the decision but I don’t deem it unfair.
It’s not a unila

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    This section will not be visible in live published website. Below are your current settings:


    Current Number Of Columns are = 2

    Expand Posts Area =

    Gap/Space Between Posts = 12px

    Blog Post Style = card

    Use of custom card colors instead of default colors = 1

    Blog Post Card Background Color = current color

    Blog Post Card Shadow Color = current color

    Blog Post Card Border Color = current color

    Publish the website and visit your blog page to see the results

    Picture
    Support Me on Ko-fi
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    RSS Feed Widget
    Picture

    Picture
    Tweets by @mrbiffo
    Picture
    Follow us on The Facebook

    Picture

    Archives

    December 2022
    May 2022
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    November 2020
    September 2020
    July 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014


    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • MAIN PAGE
  • Features
  • Videos
  • Game Reviews
  • FAQ