Poll: Should games like "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" be allowed?
- Thread starter Lucem712
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I pllayed it for ll of ten minutes. Didn't really care much for it because it was s shit game. If it were an Oblivion-esque RPG about the Colimbine Shootings, I would be more interested. Mainly on how you could make it into anything other than a shooter.
While the game is pretty tasteless and saddening, it does have every right to exist as any other game. The day that something like this is banned simply because it's a video game about a tragic series of events is the day that freedom of expression is well and truly dead.
If it was a documentary about Columbine that did all the same things that the game does, such as lionize all the stupid preoccupations about violent media, and angry music being the motivational subject matter, and catalyst that supposedly "caused" the incident, would it be met with the same scorn?
The only men who know why it happened, were the men who did it. They're beyond judgement now. I think this game has a valid point, it goes out of it's way to show how stupid the media is for trying to blame games, movies, and music for the event. The truth is, people were to blame. Lots of people.
I almost think this game should be applauded in a way, sick as that may sound. It's really satire in it's truest form.
I honestly don't think the game makes light, or fun of anyone or anything about the event. It's introspective satire, something that many people don't understand.
If it was a documentary about Columbine that did all the same things that the game does, such as lionize all the stupid preoccupations about violent media, and angry music being the motivational subject matter, and catalyst that supposedly "caused" the incident, would it be met with the same scorn?
The only men who know why it happened, were the men who did it. They're beyond judgement now. I think this game has a valid point, it goes out of it's way to show how stupid the media is for trying to blame games, movies, and music for the event. The truth is, people were to blame. Lots of people.
I almost think this game should be applauded in a way, sick as that may sound. It's really satire in it's truest form.
I honestly don't think the game makes light, or fun of anyone or anything about the event. It's introspective satire, something that many people don't understand.
Or your crazy neighbor. Or your co-worker who's always heated and talks about communism and satan all the time.LegendaryGamer0 said:I'll be sure to tell mah nearby high-school then.
As for the rest, our spies go into muslim websites and communicate with people who express jihadist sympathies. They probably do it way too much, and we just don't talk about it as much since the Dubya is gone and the nice black man who couldn't possibly be a supporter of this Third Reich bullshit is in office (soon to be replaced by Dubya's clone, my own home state's Rick Perry). Where were we?
Sorry. But there is an extent of this that is justified. Spying on a 10-strong group of anti-war activists in Cleveland who are all sworn pacifists with no criminal records is excessive. Monitoring the fringe for people who do bad things is not. I'm not suggesting playing the game on its own as something worth looking into. But if a person goes on the internet and talks about killing alot of people I don't think it's excessive for the authorities to look into someone like that. That's why I drew the parallel with kiddie porn (or legal kiddie porn in cartoon form); because people attracted to pornography involving children...are attracted to pornography involving children. And I think the authorities are well within their bounds to look into someone who's declared their love of acting out the Columbine murders and talks about doing it for real, a person who writes stories about fucking kids, or a person who talks about getting together to plan an act of political violence.
It shouldn't be made. People should have the taste not to deliberately offend without good reason. I personally would not be interested in making such a game.
That said, there is no reason to litigate against it. Even the most bigoted Neo Nazi or racist is protected by free speech, as such, all material should be protected. Whether or not you choose to pay attention to it is your affair. Once you begin censoring material, it becomes difficult to decide whether the material is empirically evil and corrupting, or simply unpleasant. I can't think of any material that can demonstratably turn people into sociopaths or murderers, as such, I can't think of any material created in a legal fashion, and distributed legally, that deserves to be outlawed. If Jack Thompson was in charge of Censoring, we wouldn't have GTA, if I was in charge of censoring we wouldn't have religion (Or Jack Thompson). Everyone finds some material offensive, and even potentially corrupting, but once you think that "There should be a Law against this", there likely shouldn't be. Whilst it would be nice to live in a world where you weren't offended, I'd rather live in one where I'm free to offend and be offended.
Whilst making a media item about a school shooting, be it a book, movie, or video game, once taking it out of the context of a documentary retelling, and into a vicarious experience, one must be mindful that you're now not simply informing, you're doing so in the form of entertainment. That's bound to offend some people. Whether people being offended by your making it is entirely up to you, but I can think of many more offensive messages I'd rather spread than "School shooters are mentally unbalanced" or, "Killing sprees are bad".
Every statement deserves protection under freedom of speech, be it racist, slanderous or simpy wrong. You can always punch a racist, or simply educate them, you can always sue a Slanderous or Libelious person, and force them to issue a retraction, and you can always logically discuss a topic with someone who is wrong, until they are right.
That said, there is no reason to litigate against it. Even the most bigoted Neo Nazi or racist is protected by free speech, as such, all material should be protected. Whether or not you choose to pay attention to it is your affair. Once you begin censoring material, it becomes difficult to decide whether the material is empirically evil and corrupting, or simply unpleasant. I can't think of any material that can demonstratably turn people into sociopaths or murderers, as such, I can't think of any material created in a legal fashion, and distributed legally, that deserves to be outlawed. If Jack Thompson was in charge of Censoring, we wouldn't have GTA, if I was in charge of censoring we wouldn't have religion (Or Jack Thompson). Everyone finds some material offensive, and even potentially corrupting, but once you think that "There should be a Law against this", there likely shouldn't be. Whilst it would be nice to live in a world where you weren't offended, I'd rather live in one where I'm free to offend and be offended.
Whilst making a media item about a school shooting, be it a book, movie, or video game, once taking it out of the context of a documentary retelling, and into a vicarious experience, one must be mindful that you're now not simply informing, you're doing so in the form of entertainment. That's bound to offend some people. Whether people being offended by your making it is entirely up to you, but I can think of many more offensive messages I'd rather spread than "School shooters are mentally unbalanced" or, "Killing sprees are bad".
Thank whatever God you pray too that someone knows their Logical Fallacies! Although I'd point out that this here:BloatedGuppy said:
Is actually an emotional plea, and not necessarily a rational one. The Laws against Child Pornography usually relate to the sexual exploitation of children, and statutory rape. To make or recieve such material is criminal and rightfully so. However, it's not based on the freedom of speech, and indeed, is held seperate to it, there is no clause stating that the First Amendment does not apply to such things. The reason to punish the creators of such material is because they are evil child abusing monsters, and the commision of such activities (Abusing Children) is criminal, or in recieving the material they collude in such a crime. Notice that once you get to drawings, such as some Japanese Anime and Manga, where the age of the participants is often unknown, but is indicated through the art to be less than what is legal, the law is not (As far as I am aware, although I would be interested to see if anyone has a case where it has been) applied, though some people have wanted it to be.BloatedGuppy said:
Every statement deserves protection under freedom of speech, be it racist, slanderous or simpy wrong. You can always punch a racist, or simply educate them, you can always sue a Slanderous or Libelious person, and force them to issue a retraction, and you can always logically discuss a topic with someone who is wrong, until they are right.
I have no problem taking the event and making it a framework for a game. To use the actual names though, that seems not only tacky and insensitive, but legally iffy. Unless you have consent from the hundreds of people involved in the incident, you might be able to be sued for something.
xvbones said:
Hm, I don't seem to see "freedom of expression" there. Perhaps I have forgotten to read suddenly and am mistaking one of the five rights for "expression". Could you perhaps teach me how to read and show me where the Constitution says "freedom of expression"? Because I still just don't see it!!! I only see speech, press, assembly, petition, and religion... none of which are expression! But I am clearly wrong, as this actual quote of the US Constitution CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY defines "freedom of expression" and none of those five I just MADE UP. I mean, some crappy quote from a 200 year old document surely cannot contradict a Constitutional law master such as yourself.The US Bill of Rights said:
As you can tell, this is sarcasm. No where in the Constitution does it say ANYTHING about "freedom of expression". It's an implied right that is extrapolated from freedom of speech. it isn't technically one of our five rights. So yes, perhaps you should read the Constitution sometime before you try and quote it, since just reading the first amendment would instantly reveal that "freedom of expression" isn't a real right.
So, do tell me: how does that foot taste? I'm quite curious.
Eh, they are all too dull.funguy2121 said:Or your crazy neighbor.LegendaryGamer0 said:I'll be sure to tell mah nearby high-school then.
Misa a Communist. :L
Let em. Just don't put cameras in their house and bug their shit.
We were at the part where we elect a Loli as El Presidente.
Elaborate.
And the feds that do such should be beaten to a fine, pulpy fondue.
Depends on what you mean by "monitoring".
Better track every angsty teen on various social networking sites then.
Which is supremely illegal and is actually warrant for arrest. Though, not getting in to that area of debate.
No Child=No Child Pornography. At least in the US.
Again, the Saw franchise. Also, liking of Lolicon=/=liking of actual prepubescent/pubescent girls in a romantic or sexual manner. But, that is another topic altogether.
Well, if they've acted it out, that, by certain wording, means they've actually done it.Depends on the usage as you are about to mention somewhat.
This extends again into the Saw argument. Also, if they are actually planning to commit such an act, that is enough to be criminally charged, depending on the circumstances.
Such "stories" are perfectly legal. Would be better to have an eye on whomever does the writing for Lifetime movies.
There is a difference between talking about it and doing it, depending on intent and what is said. One is a felony, the other is perfectly protected by the 1st Amendment.
You seem like an intelligent chap. I like you.
Albeit, disagreeing on several things. :\
/endwallotext.
I'm going to sigh once, roll my eyes very very loudly, and point out that 'freedom of speech' is 'freedom of expression.'Stall said:
They are the same. They mean the same thing. There is no divide. There is no discrepancy. Even when splitting hairs. Even when being pedantic. Even when arguing semantics.
Freedom of expression is protected by the first amendment.
I will not respond to you any more about this, just so we are clear.
Ok everyone is fine with this but when School Shooter: North American Tour 2012 got an article on here everyone threw a fit because their tampons were chafing. Either you people lack consistency or you were against School Shooter: North American Tour 2012 because the author of the article was and you were for this one because you saw your "games are art" button and smashed yes because that's become a reflex as instant as complaining about how repetitive the Modern Warfare series is despite the fact that you continue to buy them.
Well, looks like it's a joke game. You fight the demons from Doom when you die.
Guess this was a waste of time, then. We learned nothing!
Guess this was a waste of time, then. We learned nothing!
From wikipedia's page on Hiroshima:Xan Krieger said:
The bombing of Tokyo and other cities in Japan during World War II caused widespread destruction and hundreds of thousands of deaths, nearly all civilians, predominantly women and children.[14] For example, Toyama, an urban area of 128,000, was nearly fully destroyed, and incendiary attacks on Tokyo are believed to have claimed 90,000 lives. There were no such air raids in Hiroshima. However, the threat was certainly there and to protect against potential firebombings in Hiroshima, students (between 11?14 years) were mobilized to demolish houses and create firebreaks.[15]
On Monday, August 6, 1945, at 8:15 AM, the Atomic Bomb "Little Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima by an American B-29 bomber, the Enola Gay,[16] directly killing an estimated 80,000 people. By the end of the year, injury and radiation brought total casualties to 90,000?140,000.[17] Approximately 69% of the city's buildings were completely destroyed, and about 7% severely damaged.
From wikipedia's page on Nagasaki:
On August 9, 1945, Nagasaki was the target of the United State's second atomic bomb attack (and second detonation of a plutonium bomb; the first was tested in central New Mexico, USA) at 11:02 a.m., when the north of the city was destroyed and an estimated 70,000 people were killed by the bomb codenamed "Fat Man." According to statistics found within Nagasaki Peace Park, the death toll from the atomic bombing totalled 73,884, including 2,000 Korean forced workers[7] and eight POWs, as well as another 74,909 injured, and another several hundred thousand diseased and dying due to fallout and other illness caused by radiation.
How is that any less evil?