Oooo...kay. Well. I can, umm, sort of see the logic in your argument, in a sick, twisted way I suppose. But from a totally neutral point of view, none of the suggestions you made would help anything at all. If all our politicians could be swayed that easily, by not-so-much-questionable-but-totally-inethical means, I would be extremely unhappy. What's more, I would like to draw attention to a few things you've mentioned in a "well, it's for the best" tone.
Circumstances being, our politicians are wildly misinformed, but at least I can see that the people, specifically the children, are in their best interests to protect, they're just going about it the wrong way. What you are suggesting not only traumatises innocent people (i.e. their daughters), but it suggests to anyone that our government system is as malleable as play-doh, which blows any sense or, dare I say it, illusion of order and justice out the window. Secondly, any group of people willing to resort to such lengths definately should not be given any consideration whatsoever, as they are just as bad as the original offenders. There's actually a word for them, and I believe it's the Americans, the race you do patriotically represent, that are already at war with them. And it's terrorists, not Iraqis, just in case you got confused.
Besides, why should a game developer take it upon themselves to oppose an entire country's government, simply because it decided not to release their game? It would be a waste of time, money and common sense. For that matter, why should they decide to do it in a way that includes blackmail, something that's totally gross and inhumane? And hiring "ex-prison inmates" to "help"? Dude, that's classy.
Please note that I have taken into consideration the fact that you have recognised these particular "means" of achieving your goals as illegal, but have not taken a step back and really looked at what you've suggested. You say that what you suggest should only be considered as a "last resort". At no point should these means be considered a "last resort", as not only are they totally and utterly illegal, but they defy, umm, basic human rights. Assurance that one can live relatively free of danger and harm by other humans is one such example. Being able to play Left 4 Dead 2 is not. You may argue that the censorship of media is in defiance of human rights, and I would agree with you. However, retaliating in a way that defies an even more serious one should never be any kind of resort.
Finally, I have to say one more thing. You suggest that people who choose not to execute illegal, totally gross, acts of crimes against humanity need to "grow a pair", or suggest that they "have no backbone". I'd like to think that humanity has progressed possibly a little bit since the days when humans still spoke with single syllabic grunts and only chose to walk on two legs because it was a sort of trend at the time. Your "extreme rant" has made my faith in humanity shrink several sizes smaller, and it was already becoming difficult to see at low light.
Please consider this response as calm and rational as possible in light of the seething rage I am feeling at the moment.[/quote]
-
Let me be totally blunt about something here: The goverment is going to grab every bit of power it can under any justifications it can. Being able to censor the media, any form of media, for content based on "moral standards" is a massive amount of power that pretty much every goverment wants to have. Not giving the goverment this power in any form was part of what the Constitution (at least in The United States) was all about.
In the US at least it was accepted that goverment and bureaucracy basically can't be reasoned with or changed on it's own terms. One of the first thing any goverment worth it's salt does is render this basically impossible. This is why it was decided in the US at least that the population should ALWAYS be armed. The idea being for the goverment to fear it's people, as that fear is what keeps it in line.
All of the stuff about non-violent protest is absolutly wonderful, but holds it's root in violence. For it to work the goverment has to believe that your protesters are willing to turn violent, and are simply making a display before going to that level. Right now we are dealing with the multi-faceted problem in the US at least that both the Baby Boomers are in power (and old 1960s radical sell outs are not intimidated by their own tactics), and of course the simple factor that people have yet to wake up from the beautiful dream that a true differance can be made by simply representing something without any substance behind it.
Real change in the goverment has always come about due to force. Oh sure, it's great to look at guys like Martin Luthor King and his "I Have a Dream Speech" along with his non-violent protestors and say that this worked due to the power of the message. Rather at the same time you had a lot of violent liberal anti-establishment types, and groups like The Black Panthers doing stuff all over the country, and getting busted building bombs and crud in their basement. The non-violent protests worked because with this stuff going on the people holding the system in place realized that every one of those non-violent people were going to turn violent if they didn't get what they want. It's a very purtyful thing when viewed only in part, people forget about what was going on at the time.
Likewise the goverment once upon a time seriously backed businessmen running "company towns" and such treating their people as slaves. Oh sure we eventually saw unions and workers rights but only after MASSIVE violence on a level people tend to forget about.
Such are examples of why the people are supposed to be armed, and exactly the kinds of situations the goverment can't deal with. To stop something like media censorship it's going to take that level of force, because the people in power themselves have no vested interest in NOT doing it no matter who disagrees with them. All of the stuff about "protecting the children" and such is just BS when you get down to it, frankly "the children" have been threatened by everything from comic books to Rock N Roll music. It's BS, there is no more legitimacy to that point of view than there has been on anything else criticized.
So basically, what I am presenting might be unlawful from a certain point of view, but it's hardly unethical. I'm not advocating an all out revolt (yet), but rather the generation of enough fear so that if a bunch of people protest, even via an internet petition, the goverment has reason to be terrified at the potential threat it could be facing over the issue.
Nothing else really works, I look back to things like when they went after Hollywood hard core over horror movies back in the 1980s. The thing was that Hollywood had more guts and after a while a bunch of the studios started throwing money into the fight and made it quite clear that not only was there a lot of protest, but enough money to finance that kind of thing where if the goverment was to push too hard Hollywood would push back in a big way. The ties between show business and crime and such also helped a bit too. Of course people don't really choose to remember it that way. The bit about kidnapping some politician's daughter and then returning her, and burning down houses was actually taken from a few incidents going on back during that time period. Hollywood studios were suspected of having been ultimatly involved, and truth is they probably were (I do not remember all the details as I was pretty bloody young, but I figured some might remember the same incidents).
This is why I am pretty much accusing the game industry of not having a pair. Your dealing with people who nowadays throw around as much money as Hollywood for their productions. It's a juggernaut. If a bunch of studios decided to play the game right back the way it has been done before and toss a couple of million into a pot, the entire problem could be made to go away.
I see the current situation also being similar to the 1980s issues because in the 80s the whole "Video Nasties" list was assembled in England (I believe), and of course the US was going in the same direction while they were running point. Today we have Australia running point on video game censorship and the US also going in the same direction. Thus I feel similar tactics could be employed to shut them down, with video game companies like Valve acting rather than Hollywood studios. A bit of violence and intimidation tactics, some legal pressure on another front, and a lot of aggressiveness with the noise, and all of a sudden a bunch of rallied nerds and "internet petitions" seems a heck of a lot less contemptable. Forget the Muslims, goverment censors need to become concerned about their own people.
I don't expect you to agree with me, but understand something, no major goverment action that has gones as far as we're seeing here has been stopped by people playing the game their way. Every single case I am aware of where it has had a happy ending for the people themselves has involved nastiness behind the scenes.
Despite how "crazy" people might want to think I am, I am simply viewing the situation realistically, and looking at things that have happened before.
One person cannot make a differance in a situation like this, it takes concerted effort, but it also requires a person behind the scenes not playing by the rules for every one that is. It also requires in situations like this for those with the resources to effectively do the heavy lifting (so to speak).
IMO the people who sit there and wring their hands about not liking something, but aren't even willing to support the idea of direct action, are part of the problem. Things like this get going because the goverment pretty much counts on people to do exactly that.
Pardon the length, and yes your right what I am saying is "messed up" but no more so than the situation itself. Things this borked require equally borked solutions. People are supposed to follow the laws, but then again the goverment isn't supposed to go after our rights to free speech and expression (ie to be free from censorship), The Constitution even says so. I believe Australia has similar guidelines. So basically when the goverment ceases to play by the rules and goes after something like this, I believe the people are no longer being immoral if they refuse to follow the laws to stop it. This is why at least in the US we in the "poor pathetic masses" are supposed to be armed.
