A question for Americans
- Thread starter Random Name 4
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I hate to just say "yes", but that's how I feel about this comment. We have free speech. More so than most nations, even European ones.The Long Road said:
In fact, I find it ironic that the OP is from the UK. Do you actually think you have more rights than we do? This country isn't the one known as the "nanny state" that watches us with cameras everywhere and doesn't allow us to protect our own property.
I think it's less a way of saying that words can't hurt but more a way of teaching kids to ignore a lot of what is said, because it's so easy to do so. If someone's offended it's incredibly easy to forget the whole thing and not care, instead of throwing a tantrum about it.freedomweasel said:
When push comes to shove, as long as we have the right to bear arms our right to speech is protected. It's just unfortunate that so many people are willing to sacrifice their rights for passing social fads engineered by folks way more influential than they ever should be.
As one of my friends likes to say "guns are there for when the government gets out of control."
As one of my friends likes to say "guns are there for when the government gets out of control."
SnootyEnglishman said:
^ This times 1000
People are being a bunch of pansies now adays about political correctness that our speech is not only limited but being watered down to such a disgusting degree.
Our new Motto over here is "If everyone doesn't like it, you can't say it" ....-_-
Yes. You'll notice the hordes of people foaming at the mouth and calling first amendment violations about the current court case. These are the people who will be beating back the government in favor of freedom of speech. Now of course we don't have total freedom of speech,you cant shout fire in a crowded room, but we have pretty broad freedom of speech. The rules we do have are mostly to keep assholes from abusing it and endangering people.
I'm not saying punish people who think this band sucks and such. I'm talking about threats and speech that promotes hate or instills fear into someone else. Everyone should be entitled to peace right? Or are you too edgy for that as well?GWarface said:
And sure, it's obviously going to be there for quite some time. But it's a lot more reasonable to do something or at least try to do something, than just let it happen. It's better to stop one hate speech, than none. So what you're saying is that just because we can't stop them all, it shouldn't really matter?
And so you're one of those people who likes saying these things? You can say whatever the fuck you want. I agree. But I'm saying when it comes to hate speech and threats, it's not alright.
Complete and utter free speech would make countries so much more worse.
I don't think you get what I'm saying. At all .
oh my, here we go again...Woodsey said:
Because you have the right to say what you want, doesnt necessarily mean that you have to.
And even if you do, you have to be ready to defend what you said..
Freedom of speech is not a holy shield that makes you immune to your surroundings. If you talk shit, you better get ready to eat shit.
As an example; if i were running around Copenhagen and yelling that i wanted to slaughter and eat all immigrants, i would propably be the one to be slaughtered. Why? Because only idiots "run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like"... And we got other laws to handle them...
Extreme freedom is merely anarchy. Reasonable freedom only allows you to swing your fist until it impacts someone's nose. Do we have reasonable freedom in the US? No, but neither does anywhere else I've been. We seem to have to choose between religious states and nanny states. Sad.
Such as?GWarface said:
And I was being literal with it, the point is you need a cap on it at some point to stop the inevitable mad men who really do believe the xenophobic shit they say, and who add fuel to any racial tensions (just using that as an example).
They came close with BMX-XXX.mindlesspuppet said:
In the end they had to recall it and change the M on the front of the box with an AO and then it was golden.
The real issue with this is that while it starts good by kicking out a game where you place a cat on the business end of your M16 to be used as a silencer (a little funny but more annoying/disturbing the longer you think about it) it could be quickly used to remove God of War because you are having simulated sex and ripping the head off a topless gorgon who has their tits in full view.
That and when you start limiting what can and cannot be sold, the demand lowers so the supply would as well. The best case scenario for this would be ending up finding censored games in Wal-Mart that remove the blood splatter and go to Best Buy to pick up the M rated version. However, that is why the ESRB ratings were developed in the first place which is what CA pushed for in the early 90's to prevent kids getting too violent of games.
I think that books and movies are commercial products the same way paintings are. While they are created to make money, the artistic expression of the piece is still at the forefront, rather than the background (depending, of course, on who wrote/directed the piece). I believe that though they are commercial products,
I feel that books and movies are commercial products the same way paintings are. Clearly, all are meant to be seen and enjoyed, albeit at a price. However, the artist's statement or expression is always at the forefront of the piece. It's the very framework of the piece itself. Harry Potter, in the end, was a fairy tale about tolerance vs. prejudice. That story could not have happened without that framework, and that was the statement JK Rowling was trying to get across. Since self-expression is an intrinsic quality of these type of works, I personally believe that they are more art than consumer product and should be treated as such. Video games are no different.hotacidbath said: