Topic: Rape Games and You

[S-U-P-E-R]

Over the past few months, I've had a number of (sometimes heated) conversations where I felt compelled to defend criminals, messy roommates, etc., and it has led me to spend a lot of time thinking about exactly how far we should defend the rights of others in cases where it does not immediately seem to be in our best interests. Basically, I came to the conclusion that defending the rights of even the most heinous of people is important because you are basically defending your own rights as well. It might seem familiar if you read this: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/professor-sirlin-and-the-fourth-amendment.html

Right now, in Japan, there is some sort of movement in the game biz to drastically limit what can be put in porn games. Those who know me might also know why I might take issue with this sort of thing, but at the same time, it's easy to consider that a game where you rape a kid is truly AUGH-inducing and that Japan is silly because it's some CRAZY CULTURE in a far off land that may as well be on the moon and as such, neither of these things really affect us.

But to not care is lazy and irresponsible. One should make an effort to learn and consider about the far-reaching implications of laws, actions, and inactions anywhere in society. I used to not care about certain legal hot topics, like guns, abortion, gay rights, banking industry oversights, whatever, but when you start paying attention, you put the pieces together and figure out how these things affect you, hopefully without becoming the victim of a hate crime or losing your 401k.

Here are the bare facts, as I understand them:
- The mainstream Japanese media caught on to the fact that RapeLay exists.
- The game company and the EOCS (like ESRB/CERO for JPN PC games) all freak about and pull the game from shelves
- EOCS starts knee-jerk rewrite of all regulations and now only missionary position through a hole in the sheet between two married, consenting adults is allowed in games
- The Japanese government also cares, now

Here is why you should care about even the slightest chance of the bustling Japanese rape game industry of being shut down: lots of other games and nice things come from Japan and any one of them could be negatively affected. The new EOCS regulations are very disturbing in how vague and expansive they are. I don't think FF7 and GTA4 would pass them cleanly. Video games have versions on multiple platforms, including Japanese PCs, and also multiple regions, including where you live. Intellectual properties appear in games, movies, books, and everything. One small regulation can actually affect everything.

I'm going to urge you to start caring about this, and leave you with a quote from a popular, smart person:

If you accept -- and I do -- that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don't say or like or want said.

The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don't. This is how the Law is made.

[KDR_11k]

I see a point in restricting rights that infringe on the rights of others but the content in a game doesn't do that. Banning taking other people's property makes sense, even banning insults can make some sense if you want to protect the victim's dignity but banning the depiction of virtual rape? Who's being hurt by that? I doubt the voice actors are getting tortured for their performance, they get a paycheck. You could argue against including characters who look a lot like real people without asking the real people but these characters are completely imaginary.

[Stratos]

I think that would be something I'd have to wrestle with in the rape game scenario. I'm uncomfortable with those things.

But I understand and agree with you on the matter of allowing dissenting voices to be heard. That is one of the things I am grateful of here in America since we have all of these freedoms versus certain other countries where a political opposition leader is considered a criminal for running against the incumbent *cough*Zimbabwe*cough*. Here you can protest matters or you can support them.

I think of what Benjamin Franklin said about how those who want to give up freedom do not deserve it. But even so, I am torn because I not only don't care about it, I detest it.

This brings questions of whether of not acting those things out in pretend actually cause people to do them in real life. I think most of us will agree that sane adults can tell the difference and refrain from performing any crazy videogame action in real life. But is it different in a pornographic setting? Would these strong, primal urges overcome people's minds and they fall in to the real deal? But then again, anger is a primal emotion as well, isn't it? How do people become rapists in the firstplace? I don't remember much from some psych reading I did but didn't a famous serial rapist say that he started doing it because he got tired of all the pretend stuff he did? Or is that similar to the kids who tried to blame GTA on their crime spree?

Also what of people with mental issues. Do we have a way to protect themselves and others from their actions? Or do we just say it is a fact of life and everything runs the risk of leading to tragedy and we should just accept it. But this is a unique case. We are sacrificing children, children in this matter if there is a risk. And to sacrifice children for freedom is something I do not think I can do. In my mind it would be no different that those old traditions and cultures that burned their children for their gods.

But all that aside. What could we do to change this? For most of us, it is not our country nor our government. Online petitions have failed in the past and what would it do? Could we generate enough international political clout to force them to change their ways? I see and understand the potential implications, but even if I could muster the desire, what can a regualr person do?

On a final note, this topic could very easily turn into a political/religious/ideological flame war so lets be extra careful with our posts. It's an interesting thought and I don't want to see the thread go up in smoke.

[Deguello]

Limiting speech is already a practice in supposedly "free societies," even the freest.  The only thing that cannot be done to you for speaking undesirably is be thrown in jail simply for speaking it.

What are slander and libel laws but a limitation on free speech?  If I disseminated information about, say, Neil Gaiman that he was found in bed with 3 boys, one of whom mysteriously died the next day, you can bet he and his company would be after me for slander or libel, should I be a major news outlet or important enough person.

Free speech does not equate to product on shelves.  Free Speech is just free speech.  These guys could even freely distribute it on the internet (which is probably how most of their customers prefer it) and call it art if they wish.  But they are not entitled to having a product on shelves for sale as a part of "free speech."  We had this go around once before with Manhunt 2.  They didn't go down the slippery slop then, so why now?

This is a case where I believe it's in the best interests of gamers to pick our battles and ditch these fools.  What were these guys thinking?  I mean the game's got "RAPE" in the title.  Jesus.  Get a brain, morans.  Jumping to the defense of this will make an enemy of the women's groups who hate rape enough in movies in TV, but will absolutely demonize video games by proxy, just because of the interactivity involved.

And just on a personal level, what would I get for "defending the indefensible" here?  A gold star?  I don't play these games so why should I care?  And why are you asking anybody here to care?  What can they do about it?  What Japan does is its business.

And KDR, one can argue that the "victim" is society at large in this case.  A similar idea is mountaintop removal where there is no "victim" per se, but it desecrates the land and drives down property values.  Also animal abuse is another "victimless crime" because animals are legally the property of the owner and can be put into dogfights, except for the fact that that is illegal.

[KDR_11k]

The people-will-act-it-out argument has been applied to pretty much every medium by now and it has always been bullshit. Even if it does occasionally cause a crime that still doesn't warrant a ban, cigarettes kill thousands of people every year and they're still legal.

Animals are still living beings with feelings that can perceive pain, the virtual images in a rape game aren't. An animal can at least be considered a victim, as can the environment but a completely virtual image?

If retailers don't want to stock a game that's their business, online sales should still be legal though.

[Deguello]

The people-will-act-it-out argument has been applied to pretty much every medium by now and it has always been bull****.

I can prove that a work of fiction has irrevocably changed the way humans behave.  Before Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, police work was guesswork at best.  All they did was interview people and witnesses.  Sherlock Holmes, a fictional character, laid down the idea that the crime scene itself had be undisturbed, that scientific analysis provided more evidence than simple testimony.  Every police agency afterward has basically adopted all of these principles to heart.  Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," about a fictional socialist-leaning meat-packer, literally created, by itself, the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Food and Drug Administration.

If we can agree that non-interactive fiction has a positive impact, then interactive fiction can have SOME impact, positive or negative.  And games where you rape a child with little recompense and empower a rapist could definitely have a negative impact.

And sure, online "sales" should still be legal.  Of course, most of their online customers probably torrented it anyway.  Lie down with dogs, etc.

[BranDonk Kong]

Killing people can be morally (though not legally) justified - raping kids will never be. I think they should ban these games, no question about it. And yes, if it ever leads to one crime, then it should be banned.

[Morari]

The people-will-act-it-out argument has been applied to pretty much every medium by now and it has always been bull****.

I can prove that a work of fiction has irrevocably changed the way humans behave.

So can I, but we're not allowed to talk about religion on the forums.

[Nick DiMola]

I agree largely with what Gaiman said in his blog. The law is never written precisely enough to excise the exact thing you don't want. If these games are banned what other depictions will be banned in games?

[Caliban]

Every nation should ban first-person/third-person shooters because killing is a crime.

[Deguello]

I agree largely with what Gaiman said in his blog. The law is never written precisely enough to excise the exact thing you don't want. If these games are banned what other depictions will be banned in games?

That's a slippery slope fallacy.  Why outlaw thievery?  If you outlaw thievery, what else will you outlaw?!  Drinking Coke on the porch?!

[DAaaMan64]

Rape-games? State-level law.  Though government regulation of video games sounds like the worst day of my life.

Japan, do whatever the **** you want.

[KDR_11k]

The people-will-act-it-out argument has been applied to pretty much every medium by now and it has always been bull****.

I can prove that a work of fiction has irrevocably changed the way humans behave.  Before Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, police work was guesswork at best.  All they did was interview people and witnesses.  Sherlock Holmes, a fictional character, laid down the idea that the crime scene itself had be undisturbed, that scientific analysis provided more evidence than simple testimony.  Every police agency afterward has basically adopted all of these principles to heart.  Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," about a fictional socialist-leaning meat-packer, literally created, by itself, the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Food and Drug Administration.

There's a slight difference between providing interesting thoughts that a reasonable person thinks are useful and the claim that a certain medium has a specific subliminal effect despite the alledged effect only appearing in a rare few individuals out of millions of people subjected to the same influences.

Killing people can be morally (though not legally) justified - raping kids will never be. I think they should ban these games, no question about it. And yes, if it ever leads to one crime, then it should be banned.

Should we apply the same "one crime = ban it all" logic to everything that doesn't have a majority representation in the voterbase? Why not ban the Qu'ran then or any other holy scripture belonging to a minority religion? Tyranny of the majority is fine until you're no longer part of the majority.

Besides, there's plenty of killing in videogames that is not morally justified. How is it justified to kill random people in GTA? Should we ban GTA? Maybe any game in which the player is not a morally clean hero of the land?

[Nick DiMola]

I agree largely with what Gaiman said in his blog. The law is never written precisely enough to excise the exact thing you don't want. If these games are banned what other depictions will be banned in games?

That's a slippery slope fallacy.  Why outlaw thievery?  If you outlaw thievery, what else will you outlaw?!  Drinking Coke on the porch?!

What proof do you have that there is some sort of fallacy here? I'm not saying it's a slippery slope, I'm saying that what happens when they write the law? Is it going to say "No Rape Games" or is it going to say "No crude depiction of sexual acts in games"? If it's the latter, it will restrict other types of depictions in games that have no need to be restricted.

[DAaaMan64]

I agree largely with what Gaiman said in his blog. The law is never written precisely enough to excise the exact thing you don't want. If these games are banned what other depictions will be banned in games?

That's a slippery slope fallacy.  Why outlaw thievery?  If you outlaw thievery, what else will you outlaw?!  Drinking Coke on the porch?!

What proof do you have that there is some sort of fallacy here? I'm not saying it's a slippery slope, I'm saying that what happens when they write the law? Is it going to say "No Rape Games" or is it going to say "No crude depiction of sexual acts in games"? If it's the latter, it will restrict other types of depictions in games that have no need to be restricted.

When they right a law, also look for the reprocussions of the regulation to follow. It's generally a disaster when the fed. gov starts regulating market products, prices go up. eww

[Morari]

Why not ban the Qu'ran then or any other holy scripture belonging to a minority religion?

You realize that Islam is the second largest religion in the world, right? I'd hardly call that a minority. If you wanted to take it even further, you could even say that it is part of the largest religion on the planet, as it's really just another branch of the same tree that Christianity and Judaism grew on. Same basic principles, same deity, different prophets.

[Deguello]

It's generally a disaster when the fed. gov starts regulating market products, prices go up. eww

Yeah just look at what deregulation did for gasoline in the past years.

[S-U-P-E-R]

quit talking about religion jerks

And just on a personal level, what would I get for "defending the indefensible" here?  A gold star?  I don't play these games so why should I care?  And why are you asking anybody here to care?  What can they do about it?  What Japan does is its business.

I think I made it pretty clear why you should care, and that was my main point. Japan is a first-world country and one of our closest buddies (and definitely our best international buddy in the world of video games). It's not a far off silly moonland, it's a real place that rolls out a lot of real culture and literature and it should distress you when their free speech is restricted.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Japan was crazy before, and this regulatory movement is an all new kind of crazy for them.

The products were supposedly "under their radar" for so long, then they suddenly do a 180?  Wow.

[Deguello]

quit talking about politics

sdfjkbasdyuhbvfausfbaksjbfsa AARGEAHRA What's this thread about, then?!  DIE.

[S-U-P-E-R]

It's about video games!! Mostly!!

Also rape

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

rei-pu gei-mu

[BranDonk Kong]

Comparing the Qu'ran, which is a religious piece of work, to a video game doesn't make sense. The Qu'ran never makes light of suicide bombings or raping children. These games are borderline kiddy porn - borderline because there are no actual children in them, but there are certainly dudes in Asia (and I'm sure all over the world) playing these games with one hand and jerking off with the other.

[KDR_11k]

Why not ban the Qu'ran then or any other holy scripture belonging to a minority religion?

You realize that Islam is the second largest religion in the world, right? I'd hardly call that a minority. If you wanted to take it even further, you could even say that it is part of the largest religion on the planet, as it's really just another branch of the same tree that Christianity and Judaism grew on. Same basic principles, same deity, different prophets.

Minority in our countries, obviously not globally. I wanted to go Godwin on it basically .

Comparing the Qu'ran, which is a religious piece of work, to a video game doesn't make sense. The Qu'ran never makes light of suicide bombings or raping children. These games are borderline kiddy porn - borderline because there are no actual children in them, but there are certainly dudes in Asia (and I'm sure all over the world) playing these games with one hand and jerking off with the other.

But the argument against excepting child pornography from any freedoms is that its production hurts children. That's clearly not the case here.

[Ian Sane]

I am strongly against censorship.  If that becomes normal and acceptable you know those in charge will go too far.  If I've learned anything in life it's that extremists hijack everything.  It's not the reasonable person that dictates this stuff, it's the raving crazy.

When GTA: San Andreas had the whole hot coffee thing I thought it was bullshit that that company was getting in trouble over a hack.  For me though it was entirely because it was NOT part of the game and that the ESRB was immediately bending over backwards to the very people that it was supposedly created to protect the videogame industry from.  The whole idea was that the industry police itself so that the government doesn't do it for them but hot coffee hit and politicians are demanding this and that and the ESRB gave in.  Why not just hand the regulation to the government if you're going to cave in to their irrational reactions?

But when Rockstar was getting flack for Manhunt I was mad at them for making gamers look bad.  Yeah we SHOULD have the freedom to make whatever game we want but we really don't.  So be smart and don't upset the hornets nest.  We used to have to fight to have blood and now we have games with swearing and nudity and all we have to do is put a sticker with the letter 'M' on it on the case.  You may consider that stuff exploitive but it doesn't have to be.  Flims have the freedom to use nudity, violence or language in tasteful ways.  Gaming doesn't always (or even often) do that but it now can and that's a good thing.  It took a long time to get to that point and all it takes is some exploitative schlock to **** everything up.  Having a snuff film videogame was at the point where even though I support the right to make it, it just made everyone fighting against censorship in videogames look like pigs.

This is a thousand times worse.  Should we have the right to make this game?  Yes.  But defending it will make it look like we're all into rape sims when we're not.  Supporting it will make all of us look bad.  So **** it.  Throw these idiots to the wolves and disassociate ourselves from them because they're just going to ruin it for the rest of us.  Things are not secure enough yet for us to stand our ground on something like this.  Damning the rape game is probably going to give us more credibility than using it to stand up against censorship.  When fighting against censorship for films you don't point out porn, you point out something like Midnight Cowboy.  To get people on our side we need to point out the great videogame art that will censored not the exploitative trash.  "Fight against censorship by supporting the rape game" is going to have the opposite effect.