PETITION: Continue to sell Grand Theft Auto 5 in Australia

[Elijin]

Out of idle amusement, I will point out Freedom of Speech is an American constitutional right, NOT an Australian.

Do the research. While we have the idea of Freedom of Speech, its not actually protected. Our country runs on it as an idea, but should it ever be pressed to the line its allowed by popular expectation, not protected as a right.


EDIT:
The laws have improved considerably since last I read them in depth, but even still they're not as complete as the US counterparts.

I last read up on it 2004, and it was heavily revised in 2005. (Yes, thats a long time, but how often do you extensively research your protected rights?)

 

[Silvanus]

I disagree with the decision to take GTA5 off the shelves. That said, they can stock what they want, it's their decision, and it's not really "censorship" by any sensible definition.

Still, petitions are our right just like stocking decisions are theirs, so I intended to sign... until I read the text;

A game made for adults is being taken off the shelves by Target following a petition started by a bunch of misinformed feminists [...]

Nopenopenope. Might possibly have signed, but it's been phrased as an us-vs-them ebil feminists thing. I don't want any part of silly mud-slinging.

 

[veloper]

You guys are getting too hung up on the definition of censorship.

Freedom of speech as a concept is bigger than only the government silencing you or not. A person or organization can also be for or against the idea that other people may express themselves and take measures.

I believe that opinions and works of fiction should always be allowed to be expressed freely. It is the only real freedom ordinary people will ever have and it should be cherished.

Companies deciding to pull works of fiction from their shelves just because they want to decide what's good for you, isn't that much better than your government making that decision for you. Sure you have alternatives if only a few companies do it (yet), but such patronization should never be applauded.

The fuck? This isn't a freedom of speech issue either. That game is still there to be purchased. No one stopped them from making it. A single chain of stores pulled the game from the shelves.

For heavens sake guys, you can be against the original petition in principle without going full Chicken Little and invoking "censorship" or "freedom of speech". It's not the sentiment that you dislike the mentality behind the petition that bothers me, it's the hyperbole and lack of perspective. It's no different than the type someone invoked the "First they came" poem for DRM practices, or the time someone compared themselves to Rosa Parks because the SWTOR live team changed their name from Bubba Fett stating copyright purposes. You sound out to lunch. And when you sound out to lunch, no one takes you seriously. And rather than frowning at the petition that got the game pulled off shelves, they're going to frown at you and wonder if you've lost your minds.

This has everything to do with people deciding for others what information they can or cannot consume, so this touches on freedom of speech.
The effects are negligible, but the principle is still wrong.

I don't enjoy nuance, but if you want the boring and nuanced version, I'll refer to TotalBiscuit. I can get behind this as well:

 

[loa]

I don't care that target removes the game from its shelves in australia, they can do with their inventory what they want.
I just think the reasoning behind it is utter nonsense.
GTA 5 is not specifically "targeting women" so this should be nipped in the bud.

 

[Silvanus]

This has everything to do with people deciding for others what information they can or cannot consume, so this touches on freedom of speech.

No, it doesn't. Target's decision decides what people can buy from them-- nothing about their decision prevents people buying elsewhere. So, regardless of what Target decides, they can still consume what they could before; they just can't obtain it in a certain place.

If Target is deciding for others what can or cannot consume, then Burger King is doing the same by not stocking nachos.

 

[veloper]

This has everything to do with people deciding for others what information they can or cannot consume, so this touches on freedom of speech.

No, it doesn't. Target's decision decides what people can buy from them-- nothing about their decision prevents people buying elsewhere. So, regardless of what Target decides, they can still consume what they could before; they just can't obtain it in a certain place.

If Target is deciding for others what can or cannot consume, then Burger King is doing the same by not stocking nachos.

I never said their decision wasn't limited by their own store walls.
The given reason for the removal is highly patronizing and has little to do with business.

I'm not saying that they cannot make that decision, but it's still a bad decision.

 

[Sarusas]

petition signed.

Might not a agree with it's wording but I agree with the overall goal.

 

[Silvanus]

I never said their decision wasn't limited by their own store walls.
The given reason for the removal is highly patronizing and has little to do with business.

I'm not saying that they cannot make that decision, but it's still a bad decision.

Right. They're not deciding what others can and cannot consume. Their decision simply does not have that effect.

I'm not arguing about the merits of their decision, because I disagree with the decision, and with their reasoning.

 

[Erttheking]

I disagree with the decision to take GTA5 off the shelves. That said, they can stock what they want, it's their decision, and it's not really "censorship" by any sensible definition.

Still, petitions are our right just like stocking decisions are theirs, so I intended to sign... until I read the text;

A game made for adults is being taken off the shelves by Target following a petition started by a bunch of misinformed feminists [...]

Nopenopenope. Might possibly have signed, but it's been phrased as an us-vs-them ebil feminists thing. I don't want any part of silly mud-slinging.

Pretty much my mindset. Don't agree with their decision, respect their ability to do so, the petition asking it to go back on the shelves can fuck right off with the "Evil feminists" angle.

I mean people are rightfully criticizing the first petition for being insulting towards gaming, and now this petition is being insulting towards feminists. Anyone else see the hypocrisy here?

 

[veloper]

I never said their decision wasn't limited by their own store walls.
The given reason for the removal is highly patronizing and has little to do with business.

I'm not saying that they cannot make that decision, but it's still a bad decision.

Right. They're not deciding what others can and cannot consume. Their decision simply does not have that effect.

Not outside their walls anyway.

 

[IceForce]

I mean people are rightfully criticizing the first petition for being insulting towards gaming, and now this petition is being insulting towards feminists. Anyone else see the hypocrisy here?

Come on everyone, say it with me now: "It's different when GamerGate does it."

 

[Erttheking]

I mean people are rightfully criticizing the first petition for being insulting towards gaming, and now this petition is being insulting towards feminists. Anyone else see the hypocrisy here?

Come on everyone, say it with me now: "It's different when GamerGate does it."

I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with GamerGate Ice.

 

[IceForce]

The given reason for the removal is highly patronizing and has little to do with business.

Actually it has everything to do with business.
Let's think about this logically for a moment, (and disengage the parts of our brains screaming "censorship" and "freedom of speech").

A (rather sizeable) group of concerned parents said they were uncomfortable shopping at Target Australia while their stores stock a particular product that they personally deem to be objectionable and/or offensive.
In the name of good PR (and in the name of not alienating these customers), Target complied.

This does of course mean another group of shoppers are upset, namely gamers. But answer me this: Which of these two demographics makes up the largest portion of clientele that Target receives? Parents shopping for gifts for their kids over Christmas?, or gamers?

 

[Rahkshi500]

I disagree with the decision to take GTA5 off the shelves. That said, they can stock what they want, it's their decision, and it's not really "censorship" by any sensible definition.

Still, petitions are our right just like stocking decisions are theirs, so I intended to sign... until I read the text;

A game made for adults is being taken off the shelves by Target following a petition started by a bunch of misinformed feminists [...]

Nopenopenope. Might possibly have signed, but it's been phrased as an us-vs-them ebil feminists thing. I don't want any part of silly mud-slinging.

Pretty much my mindset. Don't agree with their decision, respect their ability to do so, the petition asking it to go back on the shelves can fuck right off with the "Evil feminists" angle.

I mean people are rightfully criticizing the first petition for being insulting towards gaming, and now this petition is being insulting towards feminists. Anyone else see the hypocrisy here?

I'm not one who would care much for petitions, and yet I bet I can write a better petition than this one that doesn't insult its opposition.

 

[veloper]

The given reason for the removal is highly patronizing and has little to do with business.

Actually it has everything to do with business.
Let's think about this logically for a moment, (and disengage the parts of our brains screaming "censorship" and "freedom of speech").

A (rather sizeable) group of concerned parents said they were uncomfortable shopping at Target Australia while their stores stock a particular product that they personally deem to be objectionable and/or offensive.
In the name of good PR (and in the name of not alienating these customers), Target complied.

This does of course mean another group of shoppers are upset, namely gamers. But answer me this: Which of these two demographics makes up the largest portion of clientele that Target receives? Parents shopping for gifts for their kids over Christmas?, or gamers?

Fine then, it's a company caving in to a patronizing portion of their clientele.

It makes you wonder why those same people doubt their own ability to simply not pick up GTA while shopping. I'm not actually sure which is worse, the petition, or final decision.

 

[Flammablezeus]

Finally someone who sees the hypocrisy inherent in the whole thing. It never was censorship. Censorship was what Australia did to South PArk: The Stick of Truth

Edit: Australian Government.

I know this is going off-topic a bit, but the Australian government had nothing to do with the censorship in that game. Ubisoft never even submitted the uncensored version for classification. Much like The Last of Us, we were given the censored version simply because the publisher decided that we weren't able to handle the content.

 

[Haerthan]

Finally someone who sees the hypocrisy inherent in the whole thing. It never was censorship. Censorship was what Australia did to South PArk: The Stick of Truth

Edit: Australian Government.

I know this is going off-topic a bit, but the Australian government had nothing to do with the censorship in that game. Ubisoft never even submitted the uncensored version for classification. Much like The Last of Us, we were given the censored version simply because the publisher decided that we weren't able to handle the content.

Than which one was it? Saints Row IV? I specifically remember Australia refusing the 18+ rating to one game a few years back. My point being that that is censorship. Not Target removing a videogame, based on consumer feedback, aka petition.

 

[Signa]

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of the purple elephants sneezing in my ears.

Was this supposed to sound less grounded than the other claims? Because it really doesn't.

Ugh, now they are watching me masturbate. Seriously, how do I get these elephants out of my room! GO AWAY PURPLE ELEPHANTS!

 

[IceForce]

The given reason for the removal is highly patronizing and has little to do with business.

Actually it has everything to do with business.
Let's think about this logically for a moment, (and disengage the parts of our brains screaming "censorship" and "freedom of speech").

A (rather sizeable) group of concerned parents said they were uncomfortable shopping at Target Australia while their stores stock a particular product that they personally deem to be objectionable and/or offensive.
In the name of good PR (and in the name of not alienating these customers), Target complied.

This does of course mean another group of shoppers are upset, namely gamers. But answer me this: Which of these two demographics makes up the largest portion of clientele that Target receives? Parents shopping for gifts for their kids over Christmas?, or gamers?

Fine then, it's a company caving in to a patronizing portion of their clientele.

It makes you wonder why those same people doubt their own ability to simply not pick up GTA while shopping. I'm not actually sure which is worse, the petition, or final decision.

As BloatedGuppy so masterfully put it, probably for the same reason your average person would be uncomfortable shopping somewhere that had sex toys clearly on display on the shop shelves.
I mean, sure, you could just "not pick them up", but that doesn't exactly help matters.

In any case, what I've illustrated in my quote above is also the reason why the slippery slope argument falls over.
Other video game retailers, such as EB Games for instance, are never going to remove a product like this from their shelves (unless they're forced by the government, of course). Because if they did, they've be shooting themselves in the foot, given that gamers make up their main clientele demographic.

Since this isn't the case at Target Australia, they haven't shot themselves in the foot. They've hit themselves in the foot with a spitball, nothing more.

 

[Signa]

Well, first off, all instances of man-on-woman violence being removed from the game. Or removal of sexual encounters with prostitutes. More broadly, the removal of weapons or alteration of script due to swears. Any actual tangible change to the game's content caused directly by the complaints of an outside source is at least far more worthy of being called "censorship" than this. Though by the technical meaning of the word even all of that hardly applies if it's a change being actively made by the developer themselves. Trivializing the meaning of the term with the "Self-censorship is still censorship!" argument does nothing to help us if you ask me.

More specifically, I should think I've already made this obvious but I would consider it to be censorship if the governing body of Australia had seen this and stepped in to decide "Oh hey, no, you guys can't sell Grand Theft Auto anymore." Or if they had initially declined to classify Grand Theft Auto in the first place, thus preventing it from being sold at all within the country.

So let me spin this around on you. So in order to be true, actual censorship, the content of the "offensive" medium has to be altered to suit another party? Either that, or the Government has to be that other party? I'm just trying to make sure I follow you.

If that's the case, would it still be censorship if this watchdog group asked the government to make Target pull the game instead? It still would be the same people making the same decisions, but there would be a middleman making the calls now.

I'm sorry if that's a shitty analogy, but I'm having a hard time coming up with one because both are clear cut cases of censorship to me. It's liking arguing if a terrier and a lab are both dogs or not, and I'm being told the lab isn't a dog because it meets the same basic description (ears, nasty sharp pointy teeth, fur, tail) as a cat. SEE! There's an analogy I could work out!

Trivializing the meaning of the term with the "Self-censorship is still censorship!" argument does nothing to help us if you ask me.

I also wanted to ask about this line. I feel like you said it because it felt right, but parsing it out, I can't make sense of it. What would be "helping us" and how does defining this as censorship hurt us? The game has already been banned, and that group is moving on to do more damage.