Valve pulls "Kill the Faggot" from Steam Greenlight - Polidicks

[QUOTE=3bwii;47726545]If you really don't like living in a country with free speech go move to sweden where no one's allowed to hurt your feelings.[/QUOTE] Now that I'm settled down at home, I'll post a little more. I'm really not sure you're understanding the point. At all. It's pretty pathetic, if you ask me. My feelings aren't hurt because I'm: a.) Not homosexual b.) Not easily offended However, the problem is the fact that people think they can get away with saying whatever they want under the guise of "social experimentation", as if they tool with the community for their own accord. It's both extremely annoying and potentially dangerous to allow people to say things and hold no punishment for their actions. Again, you seem to avoid the scenario I keep bringing up: is it okay to make a thread about hanging "niggers" and burning jews just because I'm an "epic" troll? Should I not be held accountable for the material I bring to the table? Is it okay if I call it a social experiment and suggest that there's a problem with [I]any[/I] naysayers? Is it okay to run out into the street and start throwing racial slurs out like it's candy and say, "haha don't worry I was trying to prove how easy it is to get a rise out of you?" Why stop there, why don't I make a flash game about rape? Well, in the world of 3bwii, as long as it's in Flash format, anything goes because it's just a stupid flash game, right? And as long as I say I'm trying to upset you, it's fair game and anyone who is upset is responsible for their own reactions, right? I'm really just trying to emphasize the fact that you're either trying to be a hardass or actually insane, but ultimately missing the point by a mile.

[QUOTE=OfficerLamarr;47728492]Hey, why don't you take a minute and read up on what freedom of speech actually is, or just at least read this comic. [URL="https://xkcd.com/1357/"] [IMG]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png[/IMG][/URL][/QUOTE] This XKCD comic is irrelevant because we're talking about whether this game is hate speech, which is a crime punished by law. We're not discussing whether we have the right to call them assholes or to remove the game from Steam.

Uh, there's a difference between judgement in and outside of the courtroom. Something can be considered hate speech outside of the law, and not hate speech within legality. Trying to argue if it's legally hate speech is stupid and not the point.

This isn't even a freedom of expression situation, valve controls steam and decide whatever the fuck they want published on it. It's a private store.

even if this were published for "muh freedom of speech in a game store" it still looks like a terrible game to actually play

[QUOTE=wauterboi;47728885]Uh, there's a difference between judgement in and outside of the courtroom. Something can be considered hate speech outside of the law, and not hate speech within legality. Trying to argue if it's legally hate speech is stupid and not the point.[/QUOTE] Then what is the point exactly ? How is it stupid ? Does the fact your judgement takes place outside the courtroom means it has no consequences and you can cast it lightly ? What's the difference between actual hate speech and hate speech from a legal point of view ? Is it that you can slap this word on whatever you want and use it liberally with no regard to its definition ? You can say that something is libel or slander when it's not the case, but that doesn't make it so. The same goes for hate speech. I mean, you consider that this game is hate speech and GTA is not based on the fact that KtF is 'bad satire'. If all it takes to propagate hate speech according to you is to suck at satire, I doubt your personal definition of hate speech holds much value.

[QUOTE=_Axel;47728881]This XKCD comic is irrelevant because we're talking about whether this game is hate speech, which is a crime punished by law. We're not discussing whether we have the right to call them assholes or to remove the game from Steam.[/QUOTE] Hate speech is not punishable by law. It is covered under the first amendment unless it fails the imminent danger test. [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio[/url]

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47729472]Hate speech is not punishable by law. It is covered under the first amendment unless it fails the imminent danger test. [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio[/url][/QUOTE] [URL=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France#/editor/2]It is in France though.[/URL]

[QUOTE=OfficerLamarr;47728492]Hey, why don't you take a minute and read up on what freedom of speech actually is, or just at least read this comic. [URL="https://xkcd.com/1357/"] [IMG]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png[/IMG][/URL][/QUOTE] That comic doesnt even matter to anything I was talking about. How does that comic even argue against freedom of speech or what im even talking about? In fact that comic is exactly my views. So unless you can find the post where I get all mad that this KILL ALL FAGGOTS guy got kicked off steam and is getting essentially shunned out of the industry, please dont be smug. Its like you were all excited "Heres my chance, gonna post this comic and totally OWN this guy!" but didnt even bother to read absolutely anything. I was talking about it being illegal hate speech, which its not. Its hilarious how you tried using a comic to argue against me when I already share the views of that comic since that is the reality of the 1st amendment. It actually helps my point on why does it matter what mean things people say? You can just judge them on your own and still criticize them and no one has to host fucked content. So im honestly confused of the point you were trying to make here.

[QUOTE=_Axel;47729518][URL=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France#/editor/2]It is in France though.[/URL][/QUOTE] Are the developers in France? I thought they were in the U.S.

[QUOTE=geel9;47675923]Valve isn't censoring anything.[/QUOTE] I don't get this. Banning an artistic work because it sends a message you find unacceptable is censorship by definition. It's no different from TV stations banning content they deem inappropriate, a job performed by people whose official title is 'censor'. This forum performs censorship, if you post something shockingly offensive (or even just spam ads) you'll be banned and your post might be removed, a suppression of your viewpoint and speech. It doesn't have to be imposed by government to be censorship. It seems like people start with this preconception that censorship is automatically an authoritarian evil, and then any act of reasonable censorship gets handwaved into 'not censorship'. Which is completely backwards. We wouldn't be having these big arguments if people accepted that yes, it's censorship, and yes, it's okay for a company to censor their marketplace to preserve their brand and the culture they're trying to cultivate.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47729642]I don't get this. Banning an artistic work because it sends a message you find unacceptable is censorship by definition. It's no different from TV stations banning content they deem inappropriate, a job performed by people whose official title is 'censor'. Governments do not hold a monopoly on acts of censorship. It seems like people start with this preconception that censorship is automatically an authoritarian evil, and then any act of reasonable censorship gets handwaved into 'not censorship'. Which is completely backwards. We wouldn't be having these big arguments if people accepted that yes, it's censorship, and yes, it's okay for a company to censor their marketplace to preserve their brand and the culture they're trying to cultivate.[/QUOTE] So are you going to bitch if you or anyone else gets banned from a forum for reasons of censorship? Is it censorship to not sell games that don't have a esrb rating in retail stores?

[QUOTE=deadoon;47729658]So are you going to bitch if you get banned from a forum for reasons of censorship?[/QUOTE] No, because I don't presuppose that censorship by a private company or community is an inherent evil. I recognize that your right to free speech is not a guarantee that other people have to host, propagate, or entertain your free speech. The First Amendment in the US is a protection against government censorship, not civil censorship. The act of censorship is not inherently wrong, it's the reasons for censorship that should be questioned. There's a significant difference between banning a news organization banning profanity on their network versus banning contrary political beliefs on their network, but both are acts of censorship. They're both examples of a private entity restricting the expression of free speech to what they consider acceptable. What matters is what they're restricting, and why- and in this case I have no problem justifying Valve's act of censoring hate speech. If Valve were banning games with an overt but otherwise inoffensive political theme that doesn't align with Valve's politics, then I'd have a problem with it, but fundamentally the act of pulling a game they disagree with is the same.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47729642]I don't get this. Banning an artistic work because it sends a message you find unacceptable is censorship by definition.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but there goal WAS to get their game banned from greenlight if I recall correctly.

[QUOTE=3bwii;47729692]Yeah, but there goal WAS to get their game banned from greenlight if I recall correctly.[/QUOTE] At least they claim that was the goal. [editline]15th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;47729690]No, because I don't presuppose that censorship by a private company or community is an inherent evil. I recognize that your right to free speech is not a guarantee that other people have to host, propagate, or entertain your free speech. The First Amendment in the US is a protection against government censorship, not civil censorship. The act of censorship is not inherently wrong, it's the reasons for censorship that should be questioned. There's a significant difference between banning a news organization banning profanity on their network versus banning contrary political beliefs on their network, but both are acts of censorship. They're both examples of a private entity restricting the expression of free speech to what they consider acceptable. What matters is what they're restricting, and why- and in this case I have no problem justifying Valve's act of censoring hate speech. If Valve were banning games with an overt but otherwise inoffensive political theme that doesn't align with Valve's politics, then I'd have a problem with it, but fundamentally the act of pulling a game they disagree with is the same.[/QUOTE] I was asking if you'd class someone being banned censorship. Just like how it is nearly impossible to sell a game in the US in physical stores that doesn't have an esrb rating. This isn't a case of censorship as they are not saying that they cannot say something, but rather that they will not spread what they say. What you are basically saying is that any case of someone refusing to redistribute a statement or product is censoring them.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47729582]Are the developers in France? I thought they were in the U.S.[/QUOTE] No, I just wanted to explain why I see it from a legal point of view.

It's social commentary on how many people talk in online shooters. "Kill the faggot" is just satirizing how people talk to eachother. A joke, a distasteful one maybe. But i really don't get why people think this is even worth discussing.

[QUOTE=Warborq;47742779]It's social commentary on how many people talk in online shooters. "Kill the faggot" is just satirizing how people talk to eachother. A joke, a distasteful one maybe. But i really don't get why people think this is even worth discussing.[/QUOTE] A "joke" that was made by a studio that is big enough to afford an actual location of business, voice acting and be dealing directly with talent agencies.

[QUOTE=Warborq;47742779]It's social commentary on how many people talk in online shooters. "Kill the faggot" is just satirizing how people talk to eachother. A joke, a distasteful one maybe. But i really don't get why people think this is even worth discussing.[/QUOTE] I would agree, except you're wrong and the developer explained the original intentions of the video game. Read the thread.