Should the United States ban a Japanese "rape simulat

[bdbdbd]

@Onyxmeth:Freedom of speech does bring responsibilities. Usually freedom of speech is limited to where you offend someone on purpose, ie, create a victim. Then again, freedom of speech shouldn't never limit on stating the facts even if it offends someone. As an example (i'm not sure if this bases itself on law or just papers selfcensorship) in Sweden they have started to censor the faces of robbers taken from surveillance tapes, when asking for public hints about the suspect, if the guy on the tape has a little too deep tan. And this is done for not to offend people.

I'm not personally happy that a game like this exists, but the same goes for a number of other games just as well.

Now what things should stay illegal that doesn't have victims? The whole justice system bases itself on the principle "if there's a victim, it's a crime".

Also, people who have libertarian view on economics (that we seem to have a few on the site) can verify that the game isn't a problem, since if there's no market for it, nobody will get the game and new ones won't be made.
Which leads us to the real problem, which is the market for the game. I'm not worried about virtual kids getting raped in a videogame, i'm worried about the people who wants to rape real kids and the game has really nothing to do with the people (except that these guys may want to buy the game because you rape the kid in the game).

As for the personal trainer thing, should we ban the internet because the pedophiles can give you advice there, or where do we put the line?
We had in Finland a few years ago a change in the law which made possible for ISP:s to prevent site specific access to internet sites. The government told the ISP:s to ban child porn (the list of banned sites came from the police), or else they'd make a law that force the ISP:s prevent the access (everyone didn't want to ban their customers access) and, naturally, would have made ISP:s responsible in law if someone had accidentally visited a child porn site.
Not so surprisingly, the first publicly known site to get banned, was a site that criticized the law, or the ban.
What problem i have with the ban? First, as i have visited thousands of porn sites and ran into child porn 2-3 times, you're not easilly going to run into it. Secondly, someone who doesn't like child porn, is going to leave the site ASAP after seeing how disgusting it is. Thirdly, even with the ban, there still is no problems to use proxy to view the content if you want to view it.
So, it's just uneffective, don't have any effect on the real problem and abused.

I know my argurment is very libertarian, as opposed to democratic, but in reality, it's only facing the facts through logic.