Games and the Law

[Alex Heat]

 

 

I haven't read much on it but isn't this basically just wanting to make the legal consequences of selling games to minors more serious than just a fine? It would probably keep the same system it has just make it where if you sell a game to a minor you get, I don't know, a free gun so you can release your inner killer (as all gamers have that killer instinct) and then have games get blamed more.

I'll have you know that I don't have the Killer Instinct, so much as I have the K.I. Feeling.

That said, I have kind of a bad feeling about this whole ordeal. Maybe it's years of the other foot dropping in just the way I don't want or expecting the dumbest possible thing to happen, but I got this feeling. Edited June 14, 2013 by Alex Heat

[Waldorf and Statler]

That tonight's gonna be a good night?!

[deanb]

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/194300/Duke_Nukem_deal_goes_sour_as_3D_Realms_sues_Gearbox.php

 

3D Realms suing Gearbox over unpaid DNF royalties. Sounds like 3D Realms is in the right, just iwth Gearbox wanting to change the contract they should have read over first time around.

[TheMightyEthan]

Saints Row 4 was refused classification in Australia.  I thought we were done with this shit once they enacted the R18+.  Isn't the point of that that it's for adults and so you've no business saying what is and isn't appropriate for them?

[deanb]

Assuming it's anything like BBFC the existence of an 18 rating doesn't immediately mean certain topics can be just thrown in willy nilly with no issues. Their change in law only added in the 18 rating above the original cap of 15, not make it completely open at the top end.

[Thursday Next]

Yup. Even in the UK positive use of drugs, injecting heroin for bullet time or whatever, would likely see you not get a rating. It's easily fixed with a change in the name  / skinning of things.

[TheMightyEthan]

Okay, but 18+ means adults only right?  The idea of any kind of government agency saying "this material is not suitable for adult consumption" is just so bizarre to me.

 

What restrictions are placed on items that are refused classification?  I don't expect you to know about the Australian system, but is there an equivalent in the UK's system?

[deanb]

Drugs are illegal, sex abuse is illegal, peadophillia is illegal. Just because you're an adult doesn't mean you can do what you want.

[Saturnine Tenshi]

But you aren't actually doing those things.

 

You aren't allowed to kill people either, but there's plenty of that in video games.

[TheMightyEthan]

I fail to see the relevance of whether the act is legal or not.  We're not talking about people doing these things, we're talking about allowing them to consume media in which these things are depicted.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

You do so many even minor illegal things in games. Jaywalking, blocking traffic, getting into fights, stealing cars/a million other things, breaking and entering, trespassing, etc.

[deanb]

Obviously without knowing the specificities of the game can't make too much judgements, but given the "drugs in a positive manner" thing is pretty much on par with the rating refusal of Fallout 3 (incidentally you can thank Oz gov't for having the proper in-game drugs like Med-X) we can guess there's something about IRL drugs being used with positive in-game/story effects, which is generally frowned upon. It'll be an easy enough tweak tbh, just a name change and given the kind of game it'd probably suit it to have something silly. Dunno on the sex stuff, I'd guess handled quite badly storywise I guess to not get away from the "obscene" element by being "artistic". 

 

As for stealing cars, shooting people, trespassing, tend to have repercussions such as cops/army showing up and such, it's rarely if ever presented as a positive act.

 

(p.s as far as jaywalking goes that's one of the things I had to look up a while ago, didn't realise in America crossing the road could be considered illegal . Which I guess also just goes to show what might be considered okay in one country isn't in another)

[TheMightyEthan]

I understand why it might be frowned upon, what blows my mind is the government can say "no, you're not allowed to depict things in certain ways, even in media intended for adults".  That's just insane.

[Thursday Next]

Yeah, it's something I have a little trouble with. Even extreme examples like "Human Centipede 2". I think the film is appalling and should never have been made, but I also don't believe in restricting people's right to make and watch crap. I mean, if I was in charge, Jersey Shore and all it's ilk would be banned as obscene.

 

I rationalise it by saying that the Oz gov't (or UK gov't - the system is near identical) say "This goes against what the people who elected us believe in, so it will not be available for sale here." You can still quite legally import, own and use it. You just can't distribute it. Of course that's all justification and doesn't really change the fact that it is a bit... oppressiony.

[TheMightyEthan]

In my experience the people in charge actually say "this goes against what the most prude among the people who elected us believe in, so it won't be available for anyone" whereas I feel like if people don't like it they don't have to play/watch/listen to it, whatever.  That obviously only works if there's good content advisories, but that's the whole point of a rating system.

[Thursday Next]

It's softened somewhat by not having a ban on imports. But yeah, as I say,makes me feel uncomfortable when stuff gets outright banned, even if it is done with good intentions. (The road to hell and all that).

[TheMightyEthan]

Oh for fuck's sake, it's the Alien Anal Probe weapon.  Seriously, Australia?

[Thursday Next]

Ok yeah, that's a bit much. There's clearly no secksual intent there. It's puerile and childish and crass and tasteless. But not obscene. Certainly not ban worthy in my opinion. But that's the problem with this sort of law. It's down to the personal taste of the reviewer since there can't be an objective measure for obscenity.

[deanb]

Sate of Decay also snagged for their depiction of drugs too.

http://forums.undeadlabs.com/showthread.php?26404-Update-on-Australian-release

 

The anal probe thing I can see their reasoning, but it is somewhat unfortunate on their choice there. The drug stuff is pretty spot on and hard to argue with really. When you've laws against certain drugs it's a bit of a bummer to have media present them in a positive light. Certainly so in nations where health service is publicly funded.

[TheMightyEthan]

The drug stuff is pretty spot on and hard to argue with really.

See, I can kind of see where they're coming from in both instances, in that I can see why it would be frowned upon, but I find it all completely indefensible.  The idea that the government can dictate the kind of light in which you can or cannot depict something is just completely antithetical to the entire idea of a free society to me.  Like, I'm not even arguing that it's okay to depict drugs that way, I'm arguing that whether it's okay or not the government should not have the power to make that decree.

[Thursday Next]

Conceptually it's the same as banning hate speech. Just as saying "This guy is a muslim and therefore you should kill him." is illegal, so is saying "Heroin is really good and you gives you super powers."

 

Not saying that that makes it ok, just that's the place that the law is coming from. Most laws that are enacted to protect people do so by curtailing the rights of some in one way or another.

[deanb]

Well ultimately it comes down to culture. Obviously as an American your view of what constitutes a "free society" will largely differ from the ideals of a "free society" built on a prison colony.

 

edit: Yeah what Thursday is saying too. The Hate Speech laws are probably the more common difference between american free speech and british/colonial free speech. I'm kind of a fan of hate speech laws.

[TheMightyEthan]

In the US hate speech isn't illegal.  You can go on national TV and say that all Muslims should be killed because they're Muslim and the government can't do anything about it (except be like "maybe we should keep an eye on this guy").  The only time something like that can be illegal is if the speaker intends the audience to actually break the law, that they are likely to do so immediately ("inciting imminent lawless action").  So even saying about a specific person, "Soandso should be killed because he's Muslim!" isn't illegal pretty much unless that person is present and the audience hearing the words is likely to act on the statement.  (I am over simplifying things, here's the Wikipedia article on the concept.)

 

I realize that's all US law, I'm just giving more background on where I'm coming from.  And why I don't find arguments like "it's like banning hate speech" particularly effective.

 

Like TN said earlier, it just seems so oppressiony.  Like, how can democracy survive when the government has the authority to suppress ideas/viewpoints with which it disagrees?  Just because something's illegal doesn't mean it's objectively right that it's illegal, it just means it's perceived as bad, but if you're only ever allowed to depict it in a negative fashion then it's going to be much more difficult to change that perception.  Imagine if being gay were still illegal, so the government refused classification of any media which depicted gay relationships as anything other than a horrible disease that will ruin your life?  Hell, as far as I know that's what it was like in the 50's (here too, though it wasn't the government doing it it was the media companies themselves).  Not to say using drugs is the same as being gay, I'm just saying that if you're not allowed to challenge ideas and perceptions then it perpetuates the status quo, whether the status quo is justified or not.

[deanb]

Yeah I understand how free speech works in the US, hence us mentioning that hate speech laws exist outside of US as a sort of reminder. And democracy exists because you can vote in people that might change what's illegal or not. A limit to free speech is not a limit to the capability of democracy, it's democracy in action. (especially considering the only reason this is news is because these are the first two games to not come under the newly implemented R18 classification.) What isn't democracy is when like your example where media companies decide themselves what can or can't be allowed.

 

I'd be much more in line with your kind of thinking if these were prohibited due to portraying gay couples or something. But it's stuff that falls under illicit drug use and sex abuse laws. Gay couples are actually protected under hate speech laws, unlike modern america. So it's kind of the exact opposite. Between being able to shoot up in a video game and wander down the street with a "die fags" sign, and using Med-X in a game and not being told to die or having to have biker gangs protect my funeral I know which I'd pick.

[TheMightyEthan]

What I meant was that without the ability to express dissent effective democracy cannot survive.  Sure you can still vote, but if the government can control how the issues are presented then how meaningful is that vote really?  To me the difference between this and the Great Firewall of China is one of degree, not of kind.

 

And yes, it falls under drug laws and sex abuse laws, but my point was that just because something's illegal doesn't mean it's bad (again, not saying drug abuse or rape is good).  Just because something's illegal does not mean it should be illegal, so "it's illegal" is a completely meaningless justification.  That was my point about the gay thing: being gay used to be illegal, so by your reasoning they would have been just as justified in banning media that portrayed gay people in a positive light.  Or hell, gay marriage is still illegal in the UK, so what if they refused classification to anything that portrayed gay marriage as a positive thing?  "It's illegal" cannot be the justification for banning a certain viewpoint.

 

Yes, allowing anyone to express any viewpoint on any topic can allow in some shit, but I would take that over the authorities getting to decide what viewpoints you can and cannot express any day.

 

To do the stereotypical American thing and quote someone in support of my argument (though at least this time is a Brit):  Evelyn Beatrice Hall said, in describing Voltaire's outlook, "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."