donathos said:
Onyxmeth said:
I never had any plans on playing it. However, child pornography is illegal in the US, and I believe this constitutes that. Tell me though, at what point do we draw a line? Do we allow anything imagineable to become a videogame just because virtual representations don't harm anybody? There is a difference between GTA, Manhunt, etc. and this game which tries to act as a simulation of a criminal act. I've yet to see the game where you play a serial killer trying to simulate real life kills. However rape has been in games past more imbedded into the structure of a game(Killer 7) and nobody bitches or cares about it the same way they don't care about the violence in Manhunt or the sex scenes in God of War.
How far to we take this? Do we allow games to become actual simulations of criminal acts just because we don't want to evwentually draw the line somewhere? How about software like Personal Trainer Cooking for criminals that can explain in detail how to commit crimes like murder, rape, etc., give them options to make shopping lists, explain how to commit these crimes and get away, etc.?
You just seem to be of the opinion that anything can be software/games and just because it can prove harmful in real life situations it is not enough to warrant a ban. We should simply not buy it if it doesn't interest us. However, what if software is made that gets increasingly informative and creates a niche audience only of potential criminals? There comes a point in simulation games where only those vastly interested in a subject will want to partake in the game, and then it becomes dangerous territory in my mind showing potential criminals exactly how to commit crimes through software. I make no exceptions to this either, so you can ban the murder, drug dealing, rape, etc. simulations of the world and I will not take a hypocritical stance on any of them.
|
Do we allow anything imagineable to become a videogame just because virtual representations don't harm anybody?
Isn't that an important distinction? If rape itself didn't harm anybody, it wouldn't be illegal--rape is rape (and illegal) because it causes harm. Imagining a rape, however, doesn't hurt anyone, therefore that kind of fantasizing shouldn't be illegal.
Playing a videogame about rape or murder (like GTA or Manhunt, however you want to justify those titles) doesn't hurt anyone, therefore playing them shouldn't be illegal.
...nobody bitches or cares about it the same way they don't care about the violence in Manhunt or the sex scenes in God of War.
People don't bitch about the kind of violence found in Manhunt? Of course they do. People like Jack Thompson want to draw the same kind of line you talk about, they just think it should be in a slightly different place.
The reasoning is the same--they think the violence in GTA will eventually translate into real-world violence.
Do we allow games to become actual simulations of criminal acts just because we don't want to evwentually draw the line somewhere?
Why don't we draw the line here: "simulating a criminal act" (meaning, playing a video game) is legal. Performing a criminal act, in real life, is illegal.
In the same way we treat reading; reading about a criminal act--even pedophelia (e.g. Lolita, The 120 Days of Sodom)--is legal. Committing pedophelia is illegal.
There comes a point in simulation games where only those vastly interested in a subject will want to partake in the game, and then it becomes dangerous territory in my mind showing potential criminals exactly how to commit crimes through software.
A scenario that I find more frightening than murderers "learning to murder" by playing video games (though murderers seem to have done just fine even before the invention of the Playstation) is developing a society in which certain forms of speech are restricted even to adults because some others find it offensive or troubling.
The entire point to "freedom of speech" is protecting the hard, disturbing stuff; if it was only about the stuff that everyone's already comfortable with, then freedom of speech would be kind of meaningless.
|
There are limits to freedom of speech. I don't like it that some people are under the impression that freedom of speech means complete and utter freedom without restrictions. I can yell "fire" in a movie theatre and no one will get hurt necessarily. That doesn't mean it's allowed.
I felt uncomfortable about this game since the beginning of this topic, but my stance didn't change until I read the review involving raping a minor. We can all argue over this but I feel that constitutes child pornography, which is illegal in my country. That is where I drew my line.
I am getting the feeling that you feel no line should ever be drawn in wht can and cannot be produced into a game. Do you really feel there is no material on earth that could pose a threat to people if allowed to be made? bdbdbd, that question goes to you also.
@bdbdbd-I think you misunderstood why my mind got changed. It had specifically to do with the virtual child involved, not the raping itself. I firmly stood on the side that this has merit to be produced until I felt it crossed what I believe might be a legal boundary. So yes, I feel this game should be illegal to be produced at least in my country. Maybe it is. There doesn't seem to be any American vendor selling it.
I also don't want to bother with the victimless crime bit. There are plenty of things that are illegal that don't necessarily have victims involved but should stay illegal.
My earlier point was that if a piece of software that helped plan a rape, actually help you track it, go shopping for necessary items involved, assisted with ways to not be found out, entirely inspired after software like Personal Trainer: Cooking by Nintendo where it was only a benefit to those planning out a real life rape was produced, does that go too far and should the line be drawn there?
(Former) Lead Moderator
