Censorship! Vile, disgusting CENSORSHIP!

[Gorrath]

It seems to me that the problem with the self-censorship debate is that hardliners tend to treat any and all censorship as an inherently bad thing. I self-censor while I"m at my job, as do many people and this isn't a bad thing. So, is circulating an online petition to have a game cancelled an attempt at creating pressure to censor the game? Sure. Is it ethically or morally wrong? Nope. People seem to do this all the time, where they take an idea like censorship, or various -isms and decry any and all incarnation of them regardless of context.

Context gives us a framework where we can make some sense of whether a bit of censorship is immoral or unethical or not. Threatening to punch someone in the face to get them to self-censor is immoral. Asking for changes in a game that's coming out is not immoral or unethical. Asking for a game to be outright banned because you don't like its content is unethical. Asking a developer to consider the feelings of a group of people is not immoral or unethical. Threatening or attempting to bury a company because you don't think they listened to the feelings of a group of people is unethical.

I could go on but I don't think it's all that hard to figure out in many cases. Some context might have grey areas and some are pretty clear. What we need not do is pretend as if this is a zero sum game where any and all censorship = bad or that government censorship is the only kind that should count or is worth discussing. We have the ability to make judgments on a case-by-case basis, so let's just do that instead. It's a lot more work but it's also far more fair and more worthy of society.

Does anyone else see the contradiction, or is it just me?

As for my opinion...there's a huge difference between saying "I'll boycott your game" and having a petition demanding that the game NOT BE MADE. Case in point - I'm a fan of Devil May Cry. I didn't like the look of Dante in DmC, so I didn't get that game (stupid reason really, but hey, I've lost interest in the series). Some people may have even started boycotting the company over this reason (I honestly don't know or care), and called for boycotts, but as far as I know, no-one actually demanded to Capcom "Don't make this game...or else!"
There's scanning for market interest into exactly what kind of games your customers want you to buy and then making decisions accordingly...and then there's having a metaphorical gun held to your head and being told not to make certain games.

Well I can't speak to whether anyone else would call that a contradiction but it isn't one regardless. Asking a company to not make something is not at all the same as asking for that something to be banned. The first involves asking a company for self-censorship, the second is asking the government to take action and censor the company. While the final result in terms of the game are the same, the legal and and ethical concerns are leagues apart. There are myriad reasons why someone might not want a specific piece of media to be made and they are not doing anything ethically wrong by voicing those reasons and asking that a company not make it. In turn, a company is doing nothing ethically wrong by listening or not listening to that request.

Thanks for the correction. I was thinking of it in terms of talking to/demanding from the game studio alone. I didn't think of getting the law involved with getting a game banned.

Thanks for bringing it up so I could clarify; I can see why someone might equate the two and I'm always happy to elaborate. I should also note that a ban might not only come from the government. Different organizations who control different venues might also heed the requests for the banning of certain media. This is also not unethical since it doesn't stop the media from being circulated elsewhere and the organization or individual who controls a venue has the right to restrict what's shown in that venue.

I would also like to take a moment to illustrate the difference between an ethical way of asking for change and an unethical way.

If a feminist would like to see a different interpretation of Peach and asks Nintendo make her the playable protagonist of the next Mario game that's perfectly fine. If said feminist's arguments, essays, petitions get Nintendo to do just that, that's also perfectly fine. If Nintendo decides they don't care and makes the game about Mario rescuing Peach, totally fine. If said feminist organizes a boycott of the next Mario game because Nintendo didn't listen to their ideas, also fine.

Where it gets into unethical territory is if the feminist claims that that Nintendo has an ethical obligation to portray Peach the way the feminist says she should be portrayed. This claim that any content creator owes anyone a specific representation that they like is asinine. This is where I take umbrage with many of my fellow progressives who think that companies should feel obligated to represent their views on race, gender, sex ect. It's not unethical to tell Nintendo you want a strong princess Peach who don't need no Mario, but it is unethical to claim that Nintendo owes anyone that representation of Peach. Hopefully that further clarifies my position!

Thanks for engaging with me!