Slashdot Log In
Freedom of Expression in Virtual Worlds
Posted by
michael
on Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:10 AM
from the simcensorship dept.
from the simcensorship dept.
PDHoss writes "NYTimes.com has a story on freedom of expression as it applies to virtual communities, specifically 'The Sims Online.' How should issues of free speech, community standards, and censorship be addressed in the virtual world (given that we can barely agree on those issues in meatspace)?" There's also a story in the Independent, and we've mentioned this guy before.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
the bottom line... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom Line -Sims users agreed to Terms of Service (Score:4, Interesting)
The users forfeited their 'freedom of speech' first admendment 'rights' inside the game when they agreed to the terms of service.
The Sims owners should not be forced to tolerate anything they don't want to.
Grow up. The first admendment is not a tool to force your words to be heard in private places (e.g., the online game, a private club of dues paying members).
Parent
Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Informative)
"Freedom of Speech" is a government thing. It deals with the relationship between people and their government. Likewise "Censorship". Properly used, the political term "censorship" refers to a relationship between a person or persons, and the government.
None of these have to do with the case at hand. This is not a "Freedom of Speech" issue or a "censorship" issue, but something else. This is the relationship between a services provider and a client, and the political concepts of censorship or free speech have nothing to do with it.
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a freedom thing. The First Ammendment does not give you freedom of speech, but recognizes it in a limited fashion. Likewise, a corporation poses many of the same threats now that a government did when the 1A was drafted, leading me to believe that perhaps the government ought to recognize the freedom of speech in a broader fashion- that is, one which recognizes private relationships as well.
Parent
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the American government DOES recognize private relationships as far as freedom of speech goes. It lays solidly behind the one who owns the press, so to speak. The one who owns the presses has ALL the rights. He can print whatever he wants in his forum, or choose to NOT print whatever he wants. Likewise with the Sims. It's their presses (their servers... same thing). If they don't want to print something (read: if they don't want you to use their forum to spout off in any way they don't like)... well, it's their hardware... their presses, and it is THEIR right... THEIR freedom of speech... that is protected.
Parent
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah yeah yeah. Courts come out with a lot of asenine decisions, don't they? Does not make it right. Those decisions fly right in the face of hundreds of years of jurisprudence and are from the so-called 'activist' courts which are results oriented rather than letter of the law and precedent oriented.
In a world where public gathering places like shopping malls aren't recognized as public gathering places, then whoever controls the public gathering places controls speech. Do you *really* want a collection of corporations whose sole purpose in life is to increase stock value to be the ones who decide what is spoken, and where?
Generally speaking, I'm on the side of the private owner of something. Individual shops in the mall, for example. To the extent that someone is speaking in a fashion that disrupts their business. For example, someone standing just inside the door telling everyone who comes in all about how evil abortions are. That's what is referred to as "public nuisance". :) In the shop owner's case, that's someone getting political and possibly scaring away potential business. Worse, by doing nothing about it, the shop will be determined to be anti-abortion, and the pro-lifers will scream boycott! So whether he wants to take a stand or not, he's got a serious problem on his hands. All he has to say is "you're disrupting my business. I'm not going to take a stand as a business on this issue because it's beyond the scope of my business. But you're disrupting my business." Sure, the same could be said about the mall itself, and I'll bet that the courts would ultimately decide that as long as someone's not disrupting business, they can spout their political agenda in the mall. Just like protesting with signs and crap outside the mall.
Anyway, point is, it does revolve somewhat on how strictly you interpret the constitution. The actual words are (quoted from memory :) ) :
Hm, I might have gotten them a little wrong. It's been awhile. Anyway, the sentence essentially means "Congress won't pass any laws banning speech". Says nothing of freedom of expression and so forth. Only talks about speech, and the intent was likely to have been not to prevent political speech, but to encourage it. Remember, the colonists had trouble with the King whenever they criticized him (say what you want, James II was a suck-ass King). The amendment doesn't even address corporations trying to control speech.
It's a fine line. I didn't RTFA, so I'm not trying to take a stand in relation to the article, just discuss the issue. :)
Parent
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
This is absolutely correct, although I find it distressing that so few Americans these understand why it so.
A clue can be found in the Ninth Ammendment. A fuller explanation can be found in Hamilton's arguement about why the Bill of Rights is a bad idea, since it may give the impression that rights are a priviledge granted by the government and opens the danger of interpreting away rights that have no legitimate framework for being questioned.
The Bill of Rights is not a grant to the people. It is a straightjacket placed upon the government by the people, who are the only source of legimate power in the United States of America.
I quote:
"Congress shall make no law. . . "
KFG
Parent
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
As for this, though, it exposes EA's failure with The Sims Online--they wanted it to be a big, mass-market, hugely successful, friendly game. Ludlow was writing about how horribly sick and twisted the game had become, which is bad marketing for a company wanting to portray the game in the other light to ensnare subscribers.
Hence, he's booted.
Parent
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Informative)
The big example is a line of cases in NJ in which the NJ supreme court read its own (ie NOT the US Const) as going further than traditional notions of 1AM requirements as regards freedom of speech in a private setting. To whit, this issue related to passing out flyers on the private property of a regional (huge) mall. Even though it was private property, the NJ supreme court reasoned that since the mall was acting as a pseudo-public entity anyway (malls replacing downtowns as places of congregation, malls advertising themselves and providing services as such, etc..), it had to accept limited and appropriate acts of free speech in certain areas -- notwithstanding the fact that this was private property.
There's also some US Supreme Court stuff like this regarding free speech in "company towns" but it's much more strictly limited than the big NJ deal I just mentioned.
If it were earlier in the day I'd look up the citations for the NJ case. IIRC, it was New Jersey Coalition Against War In The Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty from 1994, but I'm not 100% sure.
have a nice evening, nudicle
Parent
Deceptively simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Censorship is something to be treated very, very carefully. And we're living in a world right now where all too many people are overeager to jump on the censorship train and start filtering everything under the sun. Be careful, or else you might wind up filtering the sun as well, and where would the light come from then?
pot, kettle, black (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider slashdot itself. Most users browse at +1 or higher, so anything moderated below that is effectively censored (ACs have a default score of 0, but they choose to post at that level).
There's a lot of crap at the 0/-1 level, but there are also a lot of valid criticisms and opinions that the moderating community doesn't agree with.
Re:pot, kettle, black (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:pot, kettle, black (Score:5, Interesting)
True, but if the thread is flagged by the editors as a troll, you will lose your mod points and never be able to moderate again. It's called $rtbl, or "Real Time BlackList". Flamebaits and crapfloods may be blatantly obvious targets, but there are some crafty trolls that generate a lot of comments where you won't know what's troll and what's not.
My point is this: it up to the editors and fanboys what is insightful, and what is crapflood. Joe_User has very little control over what they see here. Sure, setting your preference to -1 will let you see everything, but try finding the rare gem among the crapfloods and goatse links. Yes, they do occur, because moderation abuse is rampant, particularly among anti Debian and Gentoo posts. Browse the next Debian or Gentoo story at -1 and observe every post critical of those two distros wind up in the shitter, no matter how interesting they may be.
I'll probably get modded down for this, but WTF, I'm $rtbled anyway.
Parent
Re:pot, kettle, black (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a filtering mechanism here, but it is _voluntary_ to use. Anybody who wants to look at the stuff modded to -1 is perfectly free to do so. Anybody want to see +2 and above only is free to do that. A right to post/publish/whatever is _not_ a right to be read or seen.
That said, apart from discrimination laws, anybody with a server is of course free to treat its contents the way they want - as an owner, you can pretty much delete anything you want, for any reason (again, as long as you do not run afoul of discrimination issues - delete all posts by people of a certain race or gender will probably get you into well deserved trouble, for instance).
Freedom of speech does not give you any right to post whatever you want at another persons server; what it does is give you a right to post what you like (within the limits of the law) on your own server without being censored by your government. In the smae way, you have no right at all to write something and expect it to be published in your local paper. What you do have is the right to start your own, competing paper and publish whatever you want in it.
So if an entertainment company decides that some subject matter is out of bounds in their virtual world, they can do so. You are free to leave and start your own world. Similarily, if you really do not like the slashdot system, you are free to leave and start a competing system with the kind of policies you like. That is what freedom of speech (and, by and large, equivalent laws in other countries) means.
Parent
It gets complicated, like malls (Score:5, Insightful)
The censorship in The Sims, however, reminds me of malls. Laws vary from state to state regarding whether malls (almost always private property) have the right to censor speech by preventing public demonstrations, speeches, leafletting, etc... I think the point to remember is that as public spaces become enclosed and property rights are extended to more areas the public gathers, it is important that free speech rights allow democratic dialogue to continue.
Parent
"meatspace"? (Score:5, Funny)
One HUGE difference... (Score:5, Interesting)
In an online world, you have the TOS of the company that makes the game, and they are the ones that define your rights, and you have to agree, or they revoke your account, as happened in this case.
It would seem that unless a collective of people started an online world like the SIMS, that it will be the game company that decides what is acceptable speech and what is not.
Re:One HUGE difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:One HUGE difference... (Score:4, Insightful)
There.com is a company that is situated in the US, and therefor has to abide by the laws and practices in the US. They also have their own TOS which has to go along with those laws, and can in fact be more controlling (but not less). No matter what you may thing your rights are There, you have to follow both sets of rules.
Not quite sure how this applies when someone from an even MORE strict set of laws plays there...There is under no obligation to have the same rules as every country/state/whatever as everyone who might log in there over the 'net, so maybe it's up to the people to follow There.com's rules as well as their own country's....
Parent
A HUGE difference for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
This might seem like a minor distinction to many, but it's the difference between saying "Nothing in the Constution gives you the right to do X" and "Nothing in the Constitution grants the federal government the power to restrict X". Those are really, really major differences. Living under one model is vastly different than the other.
If we see government as the grantor of our rights, we have to go begging to the federal government every time we want to do something new and hope they'll take pity on us. If we see the Constitution as a contract between government and citizens where citizens grant a specific number of powers to government, no begging is required when something new comes up that government hasn't already restricted.
Specific to the /. crowd, it might be relevant that the federal government has no legal power to control personal communications, and that would apply to the internet, regardless of MIME type. The feds may think they have the power to impose restrictions, which they probably can exercize, but they have no legal authority to exercize a power like that. And they can't prevent you from becoming an ISP with a more reasonable (to you) TOS and running ISP's with silly TOS requirements out of business.
We are the collective of the people, or "We, the People", who have the rights (government only has powers), who can make this internet anything we want it to be, by becoming a part of it's infrastructure or paying to be members of this virtual community. Who's stopping you, unless you're a "subject" or citizen of a country where you've been fooled into believing that the source of your rights is some government?
Parent
Re:One HUGE difference... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Let the communities make that decision (Score:5, Interesting)
with every group or person with a rating on their cencorship and individuals with their self set (or parent enforced) tolarance levels the world would be self cencored.
Yes things would slip past, but when it does, that person (or group) would be censored by the users
either that or use slashcode and implement moderator and meta-moderator type cencorship level
Private vs. Public (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, since the "virtual world" is privately owned, requires money to participate in, isn't tied to government in any way, etc...I'd say it's pretty clear cut; freedom of speech doesn't apply on private property.
Let's get real here folks- what's next, arrest for murder if I cut your Massively-Multiplayer-whatever-the-hell-it-is character's throat? Jeeeeeeezus...
Re:Private vs. Public (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think the issue is so much what can be done in this particular instance but the precedent it sets. Some time in a future, virtual worlds may become a more common medium for communication & it would be nice to preserve freedom of speech for the day when VR worlds become as the telephone is today...
Parent
Arghh... my first proposed standard. (Score:5, Funny)
Pat Cadigan's take (Score:5, Interesting)
I have just one comment on Sims free speech (Score:5, Funny)
This is a non-issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The real issue (Score:4, Insightful)
EA wants this game mass-marketed, which would be a little hard to do with some guy pointing out how sickenly adult the game has become, far above its given rating of Teen. So, he is removed from the system.
Parent
If I wasnt happy with strange goings-on (Score:5, Funny)
I would then nominate myself as Alphamale and rule the city with an iron fist.
Nothing to see here, move along (Score:4, Informative)
How about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
These games are a privledge, and if the communities are outraged about censorship, or anything else, well they should fight with their money.
Sidenote: This may not be the case with TSO, but i've noticed in many MMORPGS (think EQ), people are so addicted to it, despite the fact they hate the company that owns it, they continue to play it.
They still piss and moan about it but they never actally cancel the game.
Maybe thats what happened here.
Hypothetical Scenario (Score:5, Insightful)
A group of people gets together under the premise of starting a virtual community. They let it grow, and eventually a fully fledged society emerges. Lo and behold, that society has evolved to the point where a breed of prostitution exists. It causes no harm unlike in meatspace, where STDs, rape and other types of violence are common. Since those of us in meatspace have linked all of these together under one disreputable roof, it stands to reason that prostitution online must fit in the same category. Let's censor it.
Let's censor it in desperate hope that nobody notices that the evil notion of selling sex really has turned out to be quite a human trait, not something derived from the devil as some religions would have us believe. Let's censor it so that nobody notices that true human nature just might not be mirrored by our current society's value system.
That's censorship. It's a layor of makeup to hide our "flaws."Re:Hypothetical Scenario (Score:4, Insightful)
I leave it to you, then, to come up with a harmful aspect of prostitution within "The Sims" that would warrant a treatment similar to that of prostitution within meatspace.
Again you are assuming that simply because something occurs in nature it must be good and therefore allowed. We do not live in an anarchy. Our scociety, and much of our law, depends on the fact that we should generally do what is good for the whole, which is not always what we feel like doing.Agreed, but what is "good?" Good for society or good in terms of classical morals? In my opinion, if prostitution within "The Sims" does no harm to that society (and our exterior one, but that's not part of the argument) why disallow it? In fact, since it naturally occurs, it should be given the benefit of the doubt. Subsequent laws restricting it should keep this in mind, and recognize that it is the shortcoming of the society, not the individuals nor the backing human nature that prompts such a law to be made.
Simply put, since we humans aren't built with a default set of morals fit for living in large-scale and complex societies such as ours, we DO have laws to bend and shape those morals into something that is acceptable. Since "The Sims" is external to our current society, those laws need to be rebuilt from the ground up, ignoring our current set. This means re-examining things such as prostitution and murder. In the virtual world, murder is but a mere annoyance: one may simply respawn, whereas murder in the real world warrants severe penalties.
Parent
Further Interesting Reading (Score:4, Informative)
Read on [legendmud.org] if you're interested.
Simplest Interpretation (Score:5, Informative)
In a sense, the People own the United States (irony, I know) and as such, the government (because it is owned by The People) cannot impose rules that prevent The People from speaking their mind. Now, certain allowances have been made for community standards and what not (and probably not wisely or justly), but all-in-all, very few compromises can be made to that rule without chucking it altogether. Since it is in writing, in principle, the People have the right to say what's on their minds, no matter how offensive or inane or stupid it is.
It's an entirely different matter when it's free speech on private property. The People don't own my house (or my server) and as such, I can freely tell others who speech I disagree with to go somewhere else. That is allowable censorship (although, to be honest, I don't think it's "censorship" in the sense that most people seem to). For the same reason that you can't walk into my house, take a dump on the rug, and leave, you can't just come onto a forum I've established and say whatever you like. Even if I imply that you can say whatever you like, unless you have a written guarantee, you are subject to my arbitrary whims about the content of your speech when posted on a forum I'm established.
The same holds true no matter the size of the forum as long as it is ostensibly private property. The publisher has every right (even a duty under their contract with their shareholders due to potential lawsuits) to monitor speech with they may deem harmful to the "community" and to remove such speech as they may deem necessary. They are not a government - they are not suppressing The People, just some people who use their services. Yes, it probably is censorship, but it is not Censorship, and they should have every right to do it as they see fit with their own property.
What's a public space? (Score:4, Insightful)
Censorship, Safe Harbor, and Online Worlds (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I could sue my employer for unfair termination, particularly if they had not detailed or educated me on their sexual harrassment policy.
But legislation has provided that operators of online forums have extensive safe harbor protections. For a while there, this was sketchy (see Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy [google.com], where an investment firm successfully sued Prodigy over a defamatory post and Prodigy lost because it was ruled they took such an active hand in controlling board content that they became lost Safe Harbor protection), but later legislation broadened safe harbor provisions to such an extent that EA/Maxis can boot anyone, clean things up as they see fit, or leave them messy, and they have little or no legal liability to the people who got booted or the people harmed/offended by content that stays. IANAL, but AFAIK, they've got a pretty free hand and the only thing to govern their actions is the free market.
Of course, it's quite possible they were just getting in over their heads when they created the online world they did.
A friend of mine was talking at work Friday about a friend of hers who would create new Sims Online characters just to bring them back to his primary character's residence, kill them, and bury them in the living room.
When the world devolves to a place where a man can find a willing victim for cannibalization online [bbc.co.uk], it's hard for weirdness not to filter into online worlds. When a search for "grief players" on Google turns up 1,800 results, you know that this is no limited phenomenon.
Perhaps the question is not whether there should be freedom within alternate worlds (or as absolute as you can get within the bounds of the program), but how you have to balance freedom against other needs and wants.
How much freedom is necessary to not only complete the objectives of the game, but make the game a fun place to hang out? Should you limit interaction between avatars to only that which is needed to complete game objectives and otherwise phase out community aspects? Can you take out the elements that grief players exploit and yet leave the game with enough oomph to make it popular with a big enough mass of people for it to be profitable?
It's too easy to just lash out at EA and Maxis for booting this guy. Given, it may be a knee-jerk reaction and probably wrong on a moral or ethical level, but virtual worlds are pretty new and the optimal construction and management of them for maximum player enjoyment with minimum grief player exploitation is not a set formula by any stretch of the imagination.
Honestly, a smart move would be to create a virtual world based on that "Manhunt" game they've been advertising on TV or based on GTA. Make a world of pimps, whores, seedy strip joints, dominatrixes, S&M clubs... Make a world where giving grief to others without getting grief is the challenge, and throw in a bunch of sex and sleaze to boot.
I'm not saying this is necessarily a big commercial draw (though it probably would be), but it would probably be a great way to siphon away grief players from other games.
No city ever completely cleans up its red light district or skid row necause they need them. People are going to sell and buy drugs. People are going to sell and buy sex. People are going to fall into the gutter and be more interested in staying there than getting out. These districts serve a purpose... keeping that stuff out of the suburbs and better urban neighborhoods.
That's the sociology of the games. If you conside
Proxy Intimacy, Politics, and EA's Invisible Hand (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was beta testing TSO, I started to get a few ideas about what might be possible with this sort of game. Obviously, the sexual deviance mentioned in the article occured to me (not in any vivid detail, I assure you). I thought the more interesting possibilities lied in more normal, healthy human relationships, however. For example, I was then (and am still now) involved in a long-distance romantic relationship. I began to contemplate the idea of a virtual date with my girlfriend. We could eat out, go see a show, take a romantic walk in the park. Of course, it doesn't compare to any of these activities in real life, but a virtual date, or "proxy intimacy", as I'll call it, is light-years beyond AIM as a communication medium for lovers. Of course, for single sims, nothing says you can't meet someone actractive at the club and begin a whole online relationship (once again, much more interesting than the lurid creepiness of singles chatrooms).
Unfortunately, my dreams for this sort of interaction never panned out. TSO, while trumpeted as being freeform and open-ended in the extreme, wound up digging itself into a rut pretty quickly. Some of its problems lie in the fact that it ranks users on ladders, and introduces systems of competition which are entirely artificial to a game which attempts to emulate "real life". Case in point: statistics on the richest and most popular sims. In the former case, you have a bunch of hyper-capitalists trying to outpace eachother in the generation of a hyperinflating virtual currency (more on the economic problems in TSO later). In the latter, you see an even more bizarre and surreal sort of competition, wherein online characters do whatever they can to get a "friend" designation from other players and then, for the most part, ignore those characters (what an odd definition of friendship).
Another difficulty is introduced in the zoning system used for property. On a basic level, there is none. This sounds good enough, as it should theoretically enable the construction of any sort of enterprise. The unfortunate result of this, however, is that most places just look more or less like houses. There's no concept of shared or leased property, either, as every property has a distinct owner or owners (thus, there are no apartment buildings, no malls, no office parks, nothing). And, although the game lays out properties with physical locations on a map of your chosen city, these locations have no real meaning whatsoever. Properties are not connected to adjacent properties in any special way, and thus the concept of a neighborhood is utterly nonexistent (the lack of anything approximating geography in-game is a very significant barrier to the formation of actual communities). Travelling anywhere in the game is a point-and-click affair, so there's nothing like walking down the street to the drugstore, or taking the subway cross-town to the nightclub. Similarly, you can't walk over to Bob's for the barbeque.
To be sure, people do hold many social events in the game world, but conducting them with friends (in the traditional sense, no the wierd in-game definition) can be difficult. There is very little consistency to online relationships, as the only people you're likely to run into with any frequency in a particular establishment (without having made prior plans) are the owners. Locations are no help, due to the fact that each is a node unto itself (I actually never met any of my neighbors in Alphaville. I doubt many people have). The chance of repeatedly encountering someone by chance then becomes exceedingly small. This, I think, contributes to some of the romantic and sexual wierdness of the game. In TSO, you can't see that cute girl at the Deli a few times during lunch and then work up the nerve to strike up a conversation with her. Better ask if she wants to do the make out action now while you can! Now, if TSO behaved like a more realistic analogue of life, there wouldn't be such a market for prostitution in the gameworld, as people would probably be dating and even
Re:Censorship... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a very difficult thing to make general statements about. If virtual reality ever gets to the point(and I think it will) that it actually begins to mimic reality itself, and it is used as a replacement for normal reality, THEN the philosophies for censorship, whatever they are in the majority view, should carry over.
Until then, these online games do not constitute enough of a viable replacement for the real world to be considered in the same way in terms of censorship. The content providers who run these worlds should have complete control over their own content. For them not to have control over it would sort of be a strange form of censorship itself, would it not?
Parent
Re:Censorship... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Censorship... (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting perspective. I'd long held views similar to yours, until I ran across systems that had an immense amount of freedom for the users. Inevitably, flamebait and spammers pollute the virtual atmosphere enough to warrant, and in fact *demand* some form of censorship. If you don't think that's the case, simply look at
Parent
Re:Censorship... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes. I think the future of these online systems is to become so general purpose that you do indeed have activities embedded in them. While there is as yet no standard for immersive 3D-VR I think in the long run being in such an environment should be akin to "browsing the web", that is, not a specific activity at all but just a "mode" of travel.
Second Life, for example started out with a rather complex mechanism for scoring points and turning those points into virtual cash. That economy quickly got so complex and lopsided that I don't think anyone knew how to correct the balance. Fortunately a major simplification of the system has made the accumulation of virtual dollars less important, which means you can still "play monopoly" if you choose, but opting out doesn't have any dire consequences.
If you read "Snow Crash" you will remember that "going online" (I think they called it "goggling-in") was simply the only way to use the network. If you needed to send or receive written text you simply did that on virtual I/O devices. I see 3D-VR eventually evolving away from these special purpose shoot-em-ups and into something much more generic, with shooot-em-ups, chess, cards, socializing all as coexisting activities in that space.
Parent
Re:Censorship... (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the negative effects of allowing a virtual no-man's land of legal scrutiny in online social systems are far too vast to ignore. I've seen both sides of all of the above for as long as the personal computer and modem have existed. Make no mistake, there is PLENTY of reality going on online and it has been going on for more than twenty years.
Parent
Re:Are you a facist? (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with censorship when it is to protect someone, such as the president, or even to protect you or I from harm.
This is the ambiguity that causes the struggle surrounding censorship. What constitutes harm? Are you talking about yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater? Or are you talking about some kid reading a book called "365 ways to cook human flesh" when he's a kid and turning into a cannibal when he's older? What is "harm" exactly when you're talking about speech?
The issue is further complicated when you think that here in the US, most kids learn that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Censorship is the exact opposite of that statement that we all grow up with.
There are those who would prevent you from reading any material on any religion other than Christianity, because they fear for your soul. In their eyes, it is harmful to consider other religions as valid representations of reality because to do so could bar you from Jesus's august presence in your afterlife! So for them, using your statement, it's perfectly OK to ban the Torah, the Koran, the Satanic Bible, the Compleat Witch, anything on astrology, and anything that even remotely represents any of those books and any others in a positive light. Is that a world you want to live in?
As far as this whole online censorship deal in role-playing games, I don't think the government should get involved. If they really feel the need, then just rate them periodically, just like we have with movies, and let the parents decide. Or let the kids decide for themselves, if you must. If the government gets involved and starts telling us what we can and can't say in an online role-playing game, then we've got big trouble. But what about the corporations?
Consider this: Some Disney dude goes into Pixar and says "You can't use the word feces in this stupid cartoon, find a better word." Is that censorship? Or is it quality control? So Disney sets up an online gaming world. They tell the gamers "You can't use the word feces in this stupid online game, find a better word." Is that censorship? Disney tries to appeal to stupid kids (not smart kids) and stupid parents (not smart parents). If a bunch of h4xx0rs show up in their game and start saying "Fuck you!" to everyone they meet, then Disney can't sell their game to their target demographic anymore. So I say those h4xx0rz should go pick a different game, or a different server, or something.
The only time this becomes a real problem is when there's only one online gaming setup. And we deal with that through regular free market tactics, right? ;)
Parent
Re:Censorship... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to realize that every provider of goods, either real or electronic has rights of their own. In this case one really stands out: the right to refuse service.
Parent
Re:freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Well let's see. Freedom of expression can only lead to two things, it can either display the author's acumen or expose his stupidity. If it results in the former, then we must congratulate the author for his brilliance. But if it results in the latter then we can either rebuke him or simply ignore him. And hopefully he'll learn from his mistake(s).
I say that both outcomes can only benefit the author and his audience. So I must conclude that freedom of expression is good, not whacked.
Parent
Re:It's so simple! (Score:4, Insightful)
The #1 problem with Democracy is the same problem with your post. :)
Change always starts in a minority, for better or for worse. The American Revolution was led by a minority, and there were many colonists who opposed it. Many more were indifferent as long as it didn't hurt business. But when it comes down to it, all change starts in a minority, and when you allow the majority to decide what's acceptable, you block out change. Which leads to decline.
Parent