Censorship starting: GTA 5 ban in the works

AlpsStranger

AlpsStranger

Jump jump on the tiger!
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
5,820
Democratic senator Joe Manchin:

After firmly stating that he refuses to let the NRA or anyone else "be villainized," Manchin sets his sights on Rockstar's flagship franchise. ""Look at Grand Theft Auto, put out by Rockstar Games in New York City and see what it promotes." Adding later, "Shouldn't that be looked into and maybe be banned?"

So I guess the bans are already starting :sad:

Free expression was a lot of fun while it lasted, but the old and feeble-minded have finally found an explosive enough excuse to do what they've always wanted to do. It's been a fun ride. Turn off the lights on your way out.

EDIT: Actually, upon a moment's reflection, this is a statement more of stupidity than credible malice. The entire ACLU will actually teleport directly on top of their testicles and smash them if they try this.
 
Digital copies bro. They cant stop ya.
 
Scapegoating: dogding the core of the issues and not attempting to challange the situration. Banning GTA 5 would not only go against the First Amendent but also will have no impact on criminal violence records.
 
You need to calm down, in the other thread bvpblpl something and me explained the miller test for obscenity the difficulty in applying it and the standing precedent that's positive. Wholesale video-game bans that affect the entire population (not just children) would in addition to likely not passing muster would be over-broad. If you look some of the dicta in ACLU v. Ashcroft the Court said that the fear of children being influenced or viewing obscene or pornographic content on the internet does not mean that the entire population should be subjected to the standards of children.
 
Kozmos said:
Digital copies bro. They cant stop ya.
Click to expand...

If it's illegal in the States I don't think they'll bother to release it.

ace99 said:
You need to calm down, in the other thread bvpblpl something and me explained the miller test for obscenity the difficulty in applying it and the standing precedent that's positive. Wholesale video-game bans that affect the entire population (not just children) would in addition to likely not passing muster would be over-broad. If you look some of the dicta in ACLU v. Ashcroft the Court said that the fear of children being influenced or viewing obscene or pornographic content on the internet does not mean that the entire population should be subjected to the standards of children.
Click to expand...

True, it just sickens me that other people want to control what I play. How petty can you get? The fact that it was even said out loud by a senator is bad enough to make me furious.

I'm not for gun control ( at least not as a hyperventilating response to Sandy Hook ) but at least guns are actually used in shootings. These rat ******** are actually saying they want to culturally engineer me by controlling what I can see. That's dehumanizing on a very, very deep level.
 
Alps, you seem to have a bad habit of over-reacting to things that will never happen.
 
They can't. bill of rights and such.
 
Yeah I don't see this happening, I'm looking forward to this game anyway. So I'll be angry if they do ban it :p!
 
Skwink said:
Alps, you seem to have a bad habit of over-reacting to things that will never happen.
Click to expand...

It's not a bad habit, it's a very entertaining one.
 
woody60707 said:
They can't. bill of rights and such.
Click to expand...

It's not as clear cut as that. Obscenity for instance isn't protected speech. The Miller test. So government can ban pornography if it wants to as long as it lacks artistic, scientific, social, political and literary merit.

But most video games don't have porn and it's not clear what amount of violence is enough to qualify as obscenity. It would need to be entirely devoid of artistic, scientific, literary, political and social value. That's a high bar. GTA probably passes it. The torture game might fail:http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/439144
 
ace99 said:
It's not as clear cut as that. Obscenity for instance isn't protected speech. The Miller test. So government can ban pornography if it wants to as long as it lacks artistic, scientific, social, political and literary merit.

But most video games don't have porn and it's not clear what amount of violence is enough to qualify as obscenity. It would need to be entirely devoid of artistic, scientific, literary, political and social value. That's a high bar. GTA probably passes it. The torture game might fail:http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/439144
Click to expand...

That's what I don't understand. Who gets to say something has "no artistic value." Given the mindset our culture had 200 years ago, sure, but how would you do it now? GTA clearly has artistic value, I don't think anyone can seriously claim it doesn't. I feel that Counterstrike has artistic value as well, and I don't think anyone can prove it doesn't if I were its developer and decided to call it art. Some kind of generic violence ban would be over-broad and result in hilariously crossed wires ( like banning the Passion of the Christ, for instance. )

I would think almost anything, and I mean anything, could pass that bar in a pinch.

EDIT: That game is pretty hardcore stupid, but I'm doubting it could be banned.

EDIT2: I'd love to watch the court case where someone tried to prove that GTA had no artistic value. I'd love to see the Hollywood-level voice acting and cutscenes on display. It might even help gaming's image if more of the public were exposed to the part of GTA they've never heard of.
 
AlpsStranger said:
That's what I don't understand. Who gets to say something has "no artistic value." Given the mindset our culture had 200 years ago, sure, but how would you do it now? GTA clearly has artistic value, I don't think anyone can seriously claim it doesn't. I feel that Counterstrike has artistic value as well, and I don't think anyone can prove it doesn't if I were its developer and decided to call it art. Some kind of generic violence ban would be over-broad and result in hilariously crossed wires ( like banning the Passion of the Christ, for instance. )

I would think almost anything, and I mean anything, could pass that bar in a pinch.
Click to expand...

The average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, if taken as a whole appeals to the purient interest.

The court has in the past struck down a overbroad ban on animal crush video's which depicts women in stocking and heels crushing small animals because it effectively banned hunting video's and other depictions of animal cruelty. The government later rewrote the law to specifically ban crush video's. That's an example of something that lacks any value.
 
ace99 said:
The average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, if taken as a whole appeals to the purient interest.

The court has in the past struck down a overbroad ban on animal crush video's which depicts women in stocking and heels crushing small animals because it effectively banned hunting video's and other depictions of animal cruelty. The government later rewrote the law to specifically ban crush video's. That's an example of something that lacks any value.
Click to expand...

But I don't think any game, even Counterstrike, is as simple or devoid of content as a "crush" video, even in the eyes of the stodgiest people.

Certainly a generic First Person Shooter ban would be overly broad, no?

EDIT: Is it unreasonable to say that a "virtual competition" like CounterStrike is an artistic expression? I don't think so, and I think any lawyer worth his salt could work with it.

EDIT2: It sounds like the best they could manage was a ridiculous game of Whack-a-Mole where they had to go after individual games and have a huge, dramatic court case for each one. I don't think the political will to do that would last for very long.
 
I know that I usually don't post here in the Chamber, but I do have one thing to say: Pissing off what must amount to hundreds of gamers and nerds cannot be such a good idea. Hopefully the ACLU will manage to strike this down.

("Rage of the Nerds"? That sounds like a title for a horrible movie or something.)

I'm afraid of our politicians up here in Canada getting the same ideas. :(
 
e86d85d4e3aea4071450f24f20efd54c.jpg
 
aimeeandbeatles said:
Pissing off what must amount to hundreds of gamers and nerds cannot be such a good idea.
Click to expand...

The living fossils who run the country are making the mistake of assuming they are simply taking a few toys from powerless 15 year-old kids. They're actually dealing with a potentially organizable voting block. People base their political identity on their gun collections or their appetite for weed, so why is this any worse?

I plan to vote straight libertarian in protest if the Democrats back this. I'm willing to let a few overwrought comments by cornered pro-NRA Democrats slide, but if they start pursuing this in earnest they've lost me for good. They clearly don't envision the kind of freedom I thought they did if they are so petty as to snatch my game software from me.
 
You care too much about this. I'm thinking a violent video game ban that's narrowly tailored to apply only to you may be a good idea.
 
Fun fact: GTA V is set in a sort of California. Not sure if he wants to ban GTA IV or he doesn't know what he's talking about:confused:

Anyway I don't think we should be alarmed for it, old guys who despise every "devilish" thing younger people use exist everywhere. As long as it's just one guy voicing his opinion there's no problem for me.
 
We'll see.

What Adam Lanza did was incredibly evil. Most people in our society deny the existence of human evil, so they blame everything else. Lanza was insane and became evil in his insanity. Access to heavy weapons was a problem, but even that wasn't the problem. I don't think we need ban Tarantino movies ( though most of them are not that interesting, frankly ) or shooters over it. If we use this line of reasoning then our freedoms will diminish, not increase.

I also want to emphasize something about myself. I'm not fixated on seeing blood in games, that went out with the 90s. If I'm able to play games with the same gameplay, but they just can't have blood or something I don't really mind. I just want developers to be free to use any sort of gameplay they like. For example: I love Planetside 2 and there isn't a drop of blood in the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom