Sign in to follow this  
Niyeaux

Have y'all been following this HR287 business?

Recommended Posts

It's legitimate to point out what culture someone in a free speech discussion comes from. I've had the same problem. You just can't talk to Americans about free speech and limitations thereof (ironically). I've learnt, via bitter experience, not to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is presumptuous and rude.

It's not completely serious and entirely jovial. Honestly, if you can't separate poking fun at someone's society from a personal attack, then, as goes the holy mantra of my religion: Fuck 'Em if They Can't Take a Joke.

But in all seriousness, Merus is kind of right in saying that cultural perspective plays a big part. I'm not a complete moral relativist, but a Brit's views aren't necessarily relevant to American issues. Which isn't to say that you can't have a dialogue, but everyone's going into the discussion with different assumptions. One example that comes to mind is the absurd evolution debates, where creationist proponents claim "but evolution's just a theory!" which is obviously oblivious to what the word theory means in the scientific context. That's an unflattering comparison, sorry for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's legitimate to point out what culture someone in a free speech discussion comes from. I've had the same problem. You just can't talk to Americans about free speech and limitations thereof (ironically). I've learnt, via bitter experience, not to do it.

FWIW, I'm not American, and I share the American Constitution's belief that freedom of speech and expression must be upheld without exception. In fact, I think the hate speech laws we have here in Canada are essentially censorship, and shouldn't be a thing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America has hate speech laws too, actually, and the settled law of the land isn't that freedom of speech is upheld without exception. There are exceptions. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is one of the biggest.

But I don't think it's right to steer the conversation into "Thunderpeel is wrong because America is inscrutable to non-Americans except choice Canadians like Niyeaux" because I still don't understand Thunderpeel's point. How is being forced by the government to adhere to the rules of a rating body different if that rating body is run by non-governmental agents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll have to give some examples, because from what I read the constitution is pretty clear about that.

This is straying pretty far off topic, but yeah, I'm fairly sure the American Supreme Court has upheld the freedom of speech rights of hatemongers on several occasions. None of the examples of hate speech that often get banned in other countries (ex. Holocaust denial) are illegal in the USA.

Incidentally, one of the strongest and most well-reasoned defenders of absolute freedom of speech has been a British-born journalist, Christopher Hitchens.

It's a long debate, so skip through to Hitchens' parts if you feel so inclined. He's the one in the light gray shirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you say the difference is? Like, if I'm making a game and the law says I have to have it rated by the ESRB, what would be the difference for me if the ESRB is run by the government vs. if it isn't?

I can't believe you're seriously asking me that. Just think about it for a few minutes. Who would you want rating games? Some government office that will change policy with the tides of the politics, or an independent apolitical body that remains comparatively consistent? It's the difference between having the armed forces taking care of law and order (owned by the government, changes policy depending who is in power), and the police and the court system (independent apolitical bodies which the government doesn't control). You really don't see a difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the one good thing about a rating system being run by the government is that it would be subject to public scrutiny: if you don't like how they're running the rating board, vote their party out in the next election. Independent organizations, while nominally apolitical because they don't belong to one specific party, are still staffed by people who have political beliefs, which would inform how they perform their job, and are generally not subject to public voting.

(Also, the police and court systems are not apolitical institutions. Judges are either voted on or appointed by the local/state/federal gov't, and to make it into any higher position beyond detective, police members have to curry political favor. I understand your overall point about government vs. priviate organization, just wanted to point out that this specific example doesn't really fit that model)

But I don't think any organization--political or private--should have the ability to force creators to subject their work to any kind of ratings board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who would you want rating games? Some government office that will change policy with the tides of the politics, or an independent apolitical body that remains comparatively consistent?

That's not what I would call self-evident. You can make a strong point either way. If you're going to be mandated into following a code, why would you prefer one that doesn't give you any power of say into its standards? In the case of the MPAA, it already follows politics to establish rigid standards that sometimes are unfairly unflexible (Bully's R rating was considered inappropriate by much of the public, considering the purpose and message, but it featured the word fuck more times than a PG-13 rating allowed). In the case of a government office, it's necessarily up for political scruitiny and legally accountable. Even though the MPAA can refuse to rate any film they like and only be accountable to studios, if a government office was denying ratings left and right, it can be fixed, even taken to court. The MPAA isn't beholden to the 1st Amendment, but the government is.

But again, either way we don't want it, and it probably isn't legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This new body will be largely controlled by govt by the back door and will take the fall in place of the govt of the day when things go wrong. This may lead to more stringent restrictions as those in power at the new regulatory body won't want to be accused of letting 'societal damaging violent vidyagames' through the net.

I think you would be naive to think that it would be apolitical. I've seen the Wire, I know how they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe you're seriously asking me that. Just think about it for a few minutes. Who would you want rating games? Some government office that will change policy with the tides of the politics, or an independent apolitical body that remains comparatively consistent? It's the difference between having the armed forces taking care of law and order (owned by the government, changes policy depending who is in power), and the police and the court system (independent apolitical bodies which the government doesn't control). You really don't see a difference?

Who do you want managing prisons? Some government office that will change policy with the tides of the politics, or an independent apolitical contractor that remains comparatively consistent? It's the difference between having the police take care of law and order (owned by the government, changes policy depending on who is in power), and private security forces (independent apolitical bodies which the government doesn't control).

Look, police ARE controlled by the government. I don't know why you would think they aren't. And in America, at least, government policy doesn't change any time there's an election - the people at the very tip top of important government agencies sometimes switch in and out, but the people actually doing the real work are bureaucrats there for life who provide a pretty big conservative buffer against crazy swings.

I think you have an unreasonable degree of trust in independent rating bodies. You should watch This Film is Not Yet Rated. It's a pretty good documentary about how Hollywood movies are rated (by an independent, non-governmental, non-obligatory rating body). They are entirely unaccountable and thus end up being pretty sexist and homophobic. If the government is sexist and homophobic, you can sue it, because being subjected to compulsory discrimination is illegal. If an independent purely optional regulatory body is homophobic... you're up shit creek. The MPAA raters are anonymous, even, so you can't pressure them or vote them out of office the way you can do with government officials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe you're seriously asking me that. Just think about it for a few minutes. Who would you want rating games?

In this scenario it's the government that mandates you to get a rating. It's entirely secondary to the heart of the issue as to who assigns this rating. Government mandated self-regulation is still government mandated regulation. Codifying age guidelines as law in the name of informing parents and protecting da chillendrens is ridiculous, as is the insinuation. I agree that the system could be improved, but dumb ideas like presented in the bill are never going to be it.

I would also like to point out that when you said "Jesus, not another argument over nothing", that you're kind of the driving force behind all these arguments. I quite honestly have to say that your argumentative attitude saps my energy to even get into any discussions you're involved in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This may lead to more stringent restrictions as those in power at the new regulatory body won't want to be accused of letting 'societal damaging violent vidyagames' through the net.

Well that's more or less what already exists: A self-regulating body is wholly in the interest of watching its own back, and assigning ratings that can make them the least accountable (hey! GTA is rated M, it's not supposed to be sold to children under 17 anyway!). They've even come up with new ratings whenever they think it's necessary (like when the MPAA introduced PG-13 in 1984 and the ESRB introduced E10+ in 2004). Even before film ratings, the Hays Code was an internal industry censorship standard to keep the public from making too much of a fuss about movies corrupting their morals (back in the day you couldn't say naughty words or let the villain get away). Fortunately it's voluntary. If it wasn't, at least a government agency is accountable to the courts.

I would also like to point out that when you said "Jesus, not another argument over nothing", that you're kind of the driving force behind all these arguments. I quite honestly have to say that your argumentative attitude saps my energy to even get into any discussions you're involved in.

I think I have to share some of the blame. I'm working on that. At least that's what I tell myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretend I said "government-mandated evaluation" rather than "government evaluation" and let's drop that semantic argument. I feel the same way about it. Not that it matters all that much since this is clearly never going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretend I said "government-mandated evaluation" rather than "government evaluation" and let's drop that semantic argument. I feel the same way about it. Not that it matters all that much since this is clearly never going to happen.

Thank you, Chris.

(Also, I'm little worried that so few people think there's a difference...!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Chris.

(Also, I'm little worried that so few people think there's a difference...!)

I don't think there's NO difference, but I think it is a minor difference. The people doing the evaluation are either paid by the government, or selected by the government, or sanctioned by the government, or whatever--they're still just individuals attempting to adhere to whatever arbitrary standards have been determined. Whether the evaluators are technically on the government payroll or a payroll of a company selected by the government, I don't see how it makes a substantial difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there's NO difference, but I think it is a minor difference. The people doing the evaluation are either paid by the government, or selected by the government, or sanctioned by the government, or whatever--they're still just individuals attempting to adhere to whatever arbitrary standards have been determined. Whether the evaluators are technically on the government payroll or a payroll of a company selected by the government, I don't see how it makes a substantial difference.

Seriously? Is this just an American thing? The fact that the policies of that office would change with every administration, that it would be used as a political pawn, is a minor difference? Industry self-regulation is a minor difference to government regulation? I can't believe I'm (apparently) the only one here who understands how massively important that distinction is.

PS - Tycho, if your police and courts were controlled by the government, you'd be living in a police state. The government could legally, and with no complaints, direct the police to arrest their political opponents. They could force the courts to find anyone they pleased guilty. The police and the courts are independent to the government -- and that's a huge and important difference, not to mention fundamental to democracy itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my thought is that a private organization is much more apt to play underhanded. They could change the amount they charge, refuse to rate certain games they don't like, generally be dicks about the whole thing, and there would be no avenue to get around them. At least if it's a government organization, there's some oversight there? The private, but government sanctioned, systems we have in America (banking comes to mind immediately) don't seem to be working so well at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not self-regulation if you're mandated to undergo it by an external body. Kind of takes the 'self' out of the equation, wouldn't you say?

Also, like argobot said, the government is far more accountable to the public than a private organization like the ESRB. If you have a problem with the ESRB's policies you have zero say in the matter; and there's no evidence that they would never change their policies just because the leadership isn't changing as much as it would in government.

Dewar, don't forget NYC's MTA or the Post Office. Both government mandated private orgs that are just doing great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not self-regulation if you're mandated to undergo it by an external body. Kind of takes the 'self' out of the equation, wouldn't you say?

It's still self-regulation, even if it's mandated. The ESRB could rate every single software release "E" and there's nothing the government could do about it.

Also, like argobot said, the government is far more accountable to the public than a private organization like the ESRB. If you have a problem with the ESRB's policies you have zero say in the matter; and there's no evidence that they would never change their policies just because the leadership isn't changing as much as it would in government.

Yep, that's an argument for government regulation. (Some people say that "self-regulation" is as good as "no regulation", given the obvious conflicts of interest.) Unfortunately there's downsides, too: If the government controls the body that regulates things, then there's still the chance of conflict of interest. Any President, even one with a lack of understanding of games, would have the sole power to essentially kill the "Mature" games market -- pushing everything into the harsher category of "Adults Only" if they wanted to.

There's pros and cons to both systems. I personally think government mandated self-regulation (which is what we have for films here in the UK) works just fine. But that's just my opinion.

Dewar, don't forget NYC's MTA or the Post Office. Both government mandated private orgs that are just doing great.

This is unrelated. They're publicly controlled. Again, there's pros and cons to privately owned and publicly controlled public services. Here in the UK, our government is trying to privatise everything (they even did trials for privatising the police -- eek). London's public transportation system is also privatised now... and we're considered to have one of the worst underground train systems in Europe. Privatisation isn't the answer to everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS - Tycho, if your police and courts were controlled by the government, you'd be living in a police state. The government could legally, and with no complaints, direct the police to arrest their political opponents. They could force the courts to find anyone they pleased guilty. The police and the courts are independent to the government -- and that's a huge and important difference, not to mention fundamental to democracy itself.

The courts are independent from the Executive branch of the government, but they are still part of the Federal/State/Local system are often appointed by Legislative or Executive officials. The Police department are also run through local and state governments. So they are effectively 'controlled by the government' because they are the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still self-regulation, even if it's mandated. The ESRB could rate every single software release "E" and there's nothing the government could do about it.

Cool story bro. People are still saying they don't want mandatory regulation.

And yeah, what Argobot said. I don't know how British law defines these things, but we define it all as the Government. The president doesn't have the power to tell the courts to rule one way or another, but that's an intentional limit in the structure of our government, not the courts being a separate entity.

As for the police not being part of the government...

189396-19103-114170-1-sam--max-freelance_super.GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this