jay pettitt on 16/3/2009 at 20:30
Koki always gets it right.
'you can't take my freedom' is a nice argument from the school of kneejerk, but it's not always valid. Civilisation is all about giving up freedoms. You give up your freedom to pollute the environment, kill, steal, defraud, build unsafe buildings and so on because society is better off, on the whole, for some restrictions. (obviously there are caveats and balances to be struck here, it doesn't follow that restrictions always make society more civilised)
Freedom of speech or expression I'd grant you is such an important freedom that it should be enshrined and protected as a right, but I'm having a real problem placing your average shooty shooty game in the freedom of expression pigeon hole without it looking kinda silly. I think it's the lack of expression that's the problem. I think what you're really arguing is that companies should be free to operate in their markets without intervention.
Also, and I don't have any evidence for this at all - so take this with a pinch of salt, it wouldn't surprise me if publishers routinely restrict expression of ideas in video games because formulaic marketing feels safe and they don't wish to risk going out on a limb. By championing the freedom of publishers from intervention you might be inadvertently encouraging market based restrictions on freedom of creative expression.
Also, where companies are too timid to go out on a limb and risk uncompetitiveness it is sometimes useful for regulation to come along and provide a level playing field. If all publishers had similar restrictions to their violence output they may all be encouraged equally to search for creative alternatives.
