Freedom of Speech
Jan 02, 2004
An article in the NY Post just begs for quip commentary. The article, entitled "Give Back Take-Two", is about the New York based computer and console game publisher -- Take-Two Interactive -- which published the extremely popular titles Grand Theft Auto and the sequel GTA: Vice City.
The author of the article, Christopher Byron, describes the games pretty much as he would describe the game "How to be me", made by the nemesis of everything that is decent, Satan himself, if only there were such a game. There isn't, so Take-Two's extremely popular titles just had to do:
Your mission [in above mentioned games] is to get your drugs and your money back - by committing as many violent, homicidal crimes as you can possibly think up.
You can pursue your goal by killing Haitians, of course, but you can also kill anyone (or everyone) else. You can machine-gun them, beat them with baseball bats, chop them up with machetes or run them over with stolen cars.
And when you do, everything will look incredibly and shockingly real, with blood spewing everywhere. NY Post
The author is sincerely upset about one specific line of dialogue from the game, which says "Kill the Haitians". This, of course, is understandably upsetting, assuming one has never seen any movie, nor any TV programme, that is not a cartoon.
It's just a video game, folks. Furthermore, it's a video game for adults. The only way I can possibly imagine why some people get so extremely upset and shocked about video games, is because these people assume that all video games, even ones which clearly says on the box that they're not suitable for kids, are, indeed, for kids.
The author goes on to compare the game with the assumed guilty not-sentenced, not-found-judicially-guilty, yet-to-stand-trial, mega popstar Michael Jackson (which, as I mentioned, is why Michael Jackson is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of "jury of peers").
People, this is insane. This is 10,000 times worse than the worst thing anybody thinks Michael Jackson ever did to a little boy. NY Post
Assuming, for just one moment, that Michael is guilty of sexual abuse of a minor, producing this game is, supposedly, worse than that. The author takes the opportunity to appeal to the mayor of New York, saying that this game is "worse than second-hand cigarette smoke".
Out of that company [Take-Two Interactive] is spewing the glorification of mass murder and the celebration of death. And the fact that the game supposedly can't be sold to anyone under 17 years of age is completely irrelevant and changes nothing. For one thing, the age cutoff is totally unenforceable, and everyone knows it. NY Post
I'm not that familiar with how ratings on movies, or video games, are enforced in the US, but I'd be surprised to find machine gun wielding guards at movies who'd die before they'd let a minor watch the satanic screen of cinema, whereas video game shops are managed by irresponsible menaces to society. But then again, I've only been to the US once. If the real world does mimic this twisted work of fiction I just imagined (induced by video game violence, no doubt), does the author not think parents are, in any way, responsible for what their own kids are doing, in their own homes? Apparently not.
Cases surface constantly in which "Grand Theft Auto" has been linked to violence and killing. In Tennessee last summer a motorist was killed and his passenger wounded when two boys - aged 14 and 16 - played "Grand Theft Auto" and then decided to go out and take sniper shots at cars, just like in the game. NY Post
Ah yes, the old "if it's on TV, it must be true" argument. How do I retort? Oh wait, here's how: Blame the fucking parents, for it's them who let their Xbox baby-sit their son, it's them who let video games, and TV, and movies, teach their son to learn the difference between right and wrong, or not to.
By what preposterous reasoning can one argue that once someone turns 17 years of age it magically becomes OK to glorify mass murder? Are we saying that it would have been OK for that Beltway Sniper guy - who was apparently in his 40s - to have been allowed to play "Grand Theft Auto" before going on his killing spree, but it wouldn't have been OK for that young teenager who went along with him to have done the same? NY Post
This is where the author assumes that seeing, hearing or in any other way experiencing immoral things or messages can cause great damages to an otherwise mentally sane, healthy and sensible person. People should be safeguarded against everything that could possibly inspire them to think bad thoughts, or do bad deeds. This line of reasoning does work, if you assume that people are really fundamentally stupid, cannot think for themselves, aren't responsible for their own actions, and need to be fed morally safe messages at all times. I don't make that assumption, but that doesn't mean I'm sure it's a wrong one to make. It does seem Stupidity is the number one virtue nowadays.
Take-Two is milking this product for all it is worth: Next year the company will even be introducing a Gameboy version of the thing, so that kids can carry it around with them wherever they go. This way they'll be able to get re-stimulated, whenever necessary, with some of the most menacing messages known to civilized man. NY Post
That's right, kids can carry this not-for-kids-just-for-adults piece of entertainment wherever they go. I think I've made my point, so I'll digress for a bit.
It seems to me that many people who live in free societies really don't want the freedom they are blessed with (and by free societies I don't mean just the fifty states of the shining beacon of light, but all free democracies in the world, which are quite a few). I can't count the times I've seen or heard a person living in a free society wishing for their society to be remarkably less free; they want freedom of speech to be reduced to "freedom of nice morally sound speech". That, of course, equals "no freedom of speech at all", because nice morally sound speech which does not upset anyone, and therefore isn't challanged by anyone, does not need to be protected.
If these people hate their freedom so much, why don't they move to a country where they aren't allowed to express the message they're expressing, or, at the very best, aren't allowed to do anything they usually do.
Addition:
The following quote is from the discussion at MetaFilter:
Forget irresponsible programming, what about irresponsible PARENTING? People act as if Rockstar Games has magic elves that deliver free copies of GTA (and the expensive systems to play them on) to all the children of the world, at night while parents are fast asleep. MetaFilter
I just found it so spot-on I had to quote it.
Comments
Its rarely (if ever) a freedom that the complainer enjoys that they complain about - its always somebody elses use of a freedom. Take for instance those radically opposed to pornography. They'll tell us that porn is so destructive, both to the partipants and the viewer that it cannot be allowed to continue. That people are getting addicted to it and its ruining lives. That its degrading to women and causing violence. Yet, to make these claims, the complainers must've viewed some porn themselves so that they could speak intelligently on the subject. But somehow, they didn't turn violent, they didn't get addicted, their life wasn't ruined.
I think the root issue with these type of folks is a lack of trust in other human beings caused by a feeling of superiority. We (the masses) will be taken in by the fancy packaging, and the loud music and the whatever and we'll become non-productive citizens at best, and criminals at worst. Oh yes. And so, for our own good mind you, the complainers want to take away those things that we use to distract ourselves (violent games, curse-filled music etc).
Comment by Bret at 23:43, 02 Jan, 2004 #
All I've got to say is I completely agree with you. Games, movies, music, these are not society's ills. It's lack of parenting, it's laziness and irresponsibility. And I'm not saying parents should shelter their kids from these things, in fact I encourage parents to let their kids experience things that aren't bubbly and nice. But, early on in life, parents have to teach their kids morals. They have to teach them right and wrong, and reality vs. illusion.
Blame the parents, teach 'em some responsibility.
Comment by Adam at 08:21, 03 Jan, 2004 #
I think you guys are both right on. I play GTA on a regular basis and, amazingly, I've not killed anybody despite the game's apparent pleas for me to do so. Good for me.
I think one of the worst societal situations is one where people blame the game or some other form of entertainment (television, movies, etc) for their children committing acts of stupidity. (Case in point with the 14 and 16 year old taking pot shots at people on the highway: where did these obviously mentally/morally incompetent kids get the rifles?)
In reality, the parents have completely failed in what I believe to be their one most important job: to raise a child who can think for himself and who doesn't automatically emulate anything he sees.
There was a number of children who emulated stunts from MTV's "Jackass" despite emphatic pleas from the producers to not do so. They would set themselves on fire (not emulating the 'expert supervision' part), shoot each other with BB guns, and other activities. When the parents found out, they wanted the show to be taken off the air.
It's all just another way to blame other people for our own shortcomings. If people are too influenced by a game/movie/etc then it's a problem with the person, not the game.
Comment by Jeffry at 08:33, 03 Jan, 2004 #
Parents are responsible for what their children watch and do. They are suppose to teach their children right and wrong, and if they do not see a certain behavior or attitude as morally acceptable, then its their duty to enforce the most appropriate procedures to correct their child.
Though, I believe the videogame company should be held responsible, it sounds like they are taking the appropriate action to remove the line referring to killing Haitians from future releases of the product. I say responsible because if I were to say "Let us kill Haitians", then I would have to suffer whatever consequences resulted from that stupid remark.
Comment by Swami Prem at 02:47, 04 Jan, 2004 #
Swami: The character who says "Kill the Haitians" is referring to a gang of... Haitians, there's nothing derogatory about it or anything like that. But, even if there was, are you suggesting that portraying racism in fiction should be illegal?
Comment by Tomas at 13:54, 04 Jan, 2004 #
I believe the main problems are the following.
A. Parents are letting their children be brought up by their Playstations, Xbox's, Televisions and Personal Computers. Instead of actually paying attention to their children they just go for the easy way and let these things replace good old parenting.
B. What in godsname is the US thinking with the current gunlaws they are enforcing. The same fake-moralist people that protest against violent games such as Grand Theft Auto also uphold gunlaws that allow people to get nearly any weapon they want with ease. Do US citizens need firearms in real life? No I don't think so unless they are in the army or with law enforcement services. When I hear about kids firing sniper rifles at cars I don't think, gee they must have been playing violent games. No I think where did they get a Sniper Rifle, a weapon that is used purely in assasinations, not hunting, not home defense etc.
Comment by Bernd Wolters at 20:00, 04 Jan, 2004 #
Bernd: I live in the U.S. and hopefully I can shed some light on your question about gun laws. Although, my comments are pretty irrelevant to this conversation. In my opinion, the political machine in this country is controlled widely by business and as a result, large corporations generally get their way in terms of policy in exchange for large campaign donations.
This is why the Second Amendment to our Constitution (the right to bear arms) somehow gets extended to assault weapons, "cop killers" and yes, sniper rifles. Gone are the days of a community-populated militia, but apparently some people still feel they need a full arsenal to combat the apparent masses of criminals (or Redcoats) lurking outside their door.
Comment by Jeffry at 02:14, 05 Jan, 2004 #
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
The US needs to burn before the disease of stupidity takes a hold of Sweden.
Comment by peter at 20:52, 05 Jan, 2004 #
Peter, how do you know it is not already there? Reading at your comment I would say it is.
Comment by David Collantes at 00:31, 06 Jan, 2004 #
David: I have to agree with you there. Swedish people are just as eager to raise their voice against their own democratic rights as Americans are.
Comment by Tomas at 01:13, 06 Jan, 2004 #
Tomas: No, I'm just saying the company should face the consequences, regardless of what they place in their videogames. Its being responsible. Perhaps there's nothing derogatory about it, but they could face it, by releasing a public statement or something like that. I don't know, maybe they've already done that.
Comment by Swami Prem at 03:53, 07 Jan, 2004 #
Swami: Are you saying that a company who produces some kind of work of fiction, be it a game, a movie or a book, should apologize for a phrase spoken by a character, if that phrase upsets anyone?
Comment by Tomas at 11:24, 07 Jan, 2004 #
release a statement? What would that do?
The writer of this article is using an easy scapegoat of videogames to narrow-mindedly point out problems within our society. If GTA is bad b/c of 'glorification' of violence, then what about books? Where does it stop? This article makes for good 'fear' press towards people who need to point thier finger. It's easy to point to a video game. It's hard to deconstruct the reasoning behind the breakup of the American family.
Comment by Daniel at 22:58, 22 Jan, 2004 #
The discussion has been closed on this entry. Thanks to everybody who participated.