jay pettitt on 14/3/2009 at 00:29
Sure. Why not?
(supposing briefly that restrictions are as likely to trigger creativity as stifle it and that variety and creativity ~ I just had a quick peek at eurogamer.net and it could in near fairness be renamed picturesofblokesposingwithguns.net ~ might be considered indicators of freedom then I might very well argue that intervention could, counter intuitively perhaps, increase sorely lacking freedom and choice for more people - at the expense of the publishers' freedom to make bags of cash marketing banal crap to kids.)
Ostriig on 14/3/2009 at 00:51
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Sure. Why not?
Wow. Exercise in stupidity.
Quote Posted by dethtoll
[...] could be extended to other forms of media?
Actually, our friend is way ahead of us at giving other mediums the stinkeye.
Quote:
Mr Taylor also told MPs that he was concerned about the content of much rap music.
“It is creating more of a problem because of the language that is used. It is language that, as a father, I would not allow my children to hear.
“To me, there is a lot of negativity that comes out of this music, especially that which is coming from America.”
Now, I really don't like rap music, in general, but hey...
jay pettitt on 14/3/2009 at 01:46
The thing is I'm also, like My Taylor, a little worried about violence being normalised in the name of entertainment and, lets be honest, being cynical and greedy and making pots of cash from pedaling crap to kids. I think it is harmful influence, maybe subtly so, but harmful non the less. I think it contributes to a kind a creeping degradation of social values - the kind of values that work to reject violence and anti social behavior as a normal part of everyday life. And I don't think marketing is benign, I think it's persuasive influence is aggressive and an act against freedom of choice - and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that. I think the combination persuasion and normalising violence is pernicious.
In fairness I'm not sure I'm comfortable with taxing (personally I'd skip the niceties and use quotas - say less than 50% of a publishers output being dominated by violent themes, enforced with various painful punishments) violent games either. But I'm not sure which I'm least comfortable with. I think I'm siding with Mr Taylor - I wonder if limiting the freedom to profit from selling and marketing endless crap (and I'd enthusiastically cast my net much wider than video games) is a more valuable freedom than freedom from the influence of endless crap.
What I'm not seeing is creative freedom that might warrant protection from interference. We're not talking art or freedom of expression here.
I'd welcome a better idea.
june gloom on 14/3/2009 at 04:52
The very instant you start taxing forms of expression, let alone the content, then free speech is in grave danger. Political dissent? Tax it. Arguing for civil rights? Tax it. Frank discussion on social issues such as race or abortion? Tax it.
Do we want to go down that road?
Muzman on 14/3/2009 at 06:38
Not that I'm for this but you're going to have to join the dots on that particular slippery slope picture a little more before I go along with it, never mind how it amounts to freedom of speech being in grave danger.
(I'm gonna have to have a look at that "psychological impact" we're all denying at some point as well. But too busy now).
june gloom on 14/3/2009 at 07:09
Simple. By establishing that video games, a form of expression, are subject to taxation based on content, you set a dangerous precedent. This would make it easier to pass laws to tax other forms of expression- traditional art, written work, film, whathaveyou. All it would take is convincing legislation and the precedent and all of a sudden you find yourself getting taxed for drawing something critical of your nation's leaders, or writing something about your stance on abortion, or whathaveyou.
It's not even so much taxing speech based on its content that gives anybody who believes in free speech a shivering horror (though it's a fucking awful thought to begin with) but it's the very idea of taxing it at all that makes me run away screaming.
Koki on 14/3/2009 at 07:36
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
The thing is I'm also, like My Taylor, a little worried about violence being normalised in the name of entertainment and, lets be honest, being cynical and greedy and making pots of cash from pedaling crap to kids. I think it is harmful influence, maybe subtly so, but harmful non the less. I think it contributes to a kind a creeping degradation of social values - the kind of values that work to reject violence and anti social behavior as a normal part of everyday life. And I don't think marketing is benign, I think it's persuasive influence is aggressive and an act against freedom of choice - and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that. I think the combination persuasion and normalising violence is pernicious.
Quit TTLG. Join MAVAV. Everyone wins.
june gloom on 14/3/2009 at 07:40
For once Koki gets it right.
reizak on 15/3/2009 at 10:29
Quote Posted by The Telegraph
Mr Taylor also told MPs that he was concerned about the content of much rap music.
“It is creating more of a problem because of the language that is used. It is language that, as a father, I would not allow my children to hear.
“To me, there is a lot of negativity that comes out of this music, especially that which is coming from America.”
So Mr. Taylor lives his life comfortably inside a bubble he creates by ignoring societal problems, because hey, it's nothing to do with him. Then something happens that forces him to confront that side of reality, but all he really wants is to recreate his bubble by trying to punish people who talk about those issues.
I'm not a fan of rap, and haven't even listened to any since my brief Coolio period when I was 12, but in many cases there are actual social reasons why rappers would sing about such awfully "negative" things, and trying to forbid people from expressing their dissatisfaction is going to do nothing to fix the problems, and everything to compound them. Why a man who can't even grasp that would be the prime minister's advisor on anything is beyond me.
It's sad about his son and all, but maybe that's exactly why he shouldn't be in his current position.
Muzman on 16/3/2009 at 04:10
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Simple. By establishing that video games, a form of expression, are subject to taxation based on
content, you set a dangerous precedent. This would make it easier to pass laws to tax other forms of expression- traditional art, written work, film, whathaveyou. All it would take is convincing legislation and the precedent and all of a sudden you find yourself getting taxed for drawing something critical of your nation's leaders, or writing something about your stance on abortion, or whathaveyou.
It's not even so much taxing speech based on its content that gives anybody who believes in free speech a shivering horror (though it's a fucking awful thought to begin with) but it's the very idea of taxing it
at all that makes me run away screaming.
Doesn't sound all that simple to me. Something regarding violence in computer games setting such a precedent that it overrides all the other precedent regarding freedom of expression. That's one hell of a piece of tax law.
We don't know the mechanism for this particular idea (that being probably its biggest stumbling block) but whatever it comes up with will be specifically violence based. Any further arguement expanding on that would need to somehow connect all expression to it. Given how all expression is not equivalent and various kinds explicitly protected, that's more an uphill battle than a slippery slope. You'll probably find that the laws governing the production and distribution of pornography fit the bill of your fears here almost exactly, and porn laws have not yet brought about tyranny or universal content taxation that I'm aware.
Indeed, the worst thing about this is that it could ghetto-ise games in the same way as the Hays code did for films or the Comics Code Authority for comics. If games were seen as falling under free expression I think they'd be fine.
