5punk

Censorship is a wider subject than just gaming, so we're extending out a little here. Everywhere has it to some extent or other, right down to 4Chan and 5punk, but where should the line be drawn? I think the UK is one of the most liberal countries in the world when it comes to censorship, which can be to its detriment when the press begin to abuse their power of influence over the population. On the other hand we are being subjected to censorship in the form of opt-out internet porn filters. The US seems to be quite similar in outlook. Germany famously censors any Nazi related content, understandably, but is that necessary? Australia is surprisingly conservative, banning all kinds of sexual content that would barely raise an eyebrow here, but it seems to be quite popularly supported. It's something I can't even offer an opening argument for because my own views are so blatantly subjective. For example, I believe that child porn should be censored. I think pretty much everyone would agree with that. I also think violent porn should be, but that's a little more controversial (where the violence is simulated). That's not too many steps away from where our own hobby lies, and many people think violent videogames should be censored. Again though, where do you draw the line? Pokemon is violent, technically. Then there's a subject which has only recently been brought to my consideration, which is fair coverage by the press. Recently the Green party raised a legal case against the BBC claiming that their coverage of UKIP was biased and disproportionate to their influence. Should they be able to stop the BBC publishing what they like? Even if it potentially influences the votes of millions of people? It's a very complicated subject, what do you think about it?

Violent porn is an odd one, I have a large collection of what you'd consider violent porn, but it's done safely and ethically in a controlled, consensual way, with people who aren't on drugs or coerced into it through other methods. Which is remarkably unlike a great deal of commercial porn, violent or not, it's a fucking terrible industry on the whole.

Interestingly, the UK has banned "extreme porn", due to some bloke watching violent porn (as I understand it actual rape videos) and then going and raping and murdering some woman. This is tantamount to banning cars because someone got pissed and ran a granny over, Incidentally though, I'm pretty sure the law has been used a few times, and only to charge people selling donkey porn dvds in pubs.

I'm not sure there's any value in censoring content that is otherwise widely available, it's probably more reasonable to regulate the industries that produce the content, I'd much rather know I'm watching, fairtrade organic violent porn, than battery farm bondage.


As far as the BBC goes, I'm pretty sure there's a charter that says they have to represent political parties according to their voter base, effectively, but being extremists, UKIP seem to manage to grab more headlines because as soon as you mention it, you're a jihadist and getting britain first shitting through your letterbox.

For games, I'm utterly opposed to censorship outside of BBFC age ratings, there's stuff I've found jarring and uncomfortable in the past, like the random videos in cod:waw, and there's stuff I've prevented mobslug from playing due to inappropriateness*, he was allowed to play CoD before I got here, so that's kinda grandfathered in, sadly.

Otherwise, as far as games for adults? it should be pretty much open season. you want to make, sell or play a game depicting a wolf man fucking a questionably aged cat girl? fine, go ahead you sick fuck. Just because I don't like it, or approve, it doesn't mean it's evil, or shouldn't exist. As long as nothing is hurt in the making of the game, and nothing illegal is in there (ie. real donkey/child porn) then you should be able to make what the fuck you like. If not we're half a step away from thoughtcrimes.


*I work on the consensual violence logic, 20 people running around a cod map shooting each other is no different to kids running around a playground with imaginary guns made from sticks. Where something like the airport bit in whichever that cod was, depicts basically non-consenting, unnecessary violence, that's inappropriate. GTA is right fucking out.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:*I work on the consensual violence logic, 20 people running around a cod map shooting each other is no different to kids running around a playground with imaginary guns made from sticks. Where something like the airport bit in whichever that cod was, depicts basically non-consenting, unnecessary violence, that's inappropriate. GTA is right fucking out.

That's an interesting perspective I hadn't considered before.

I used to not give a shit beyond no to actual kiddy porn, all the hentai forms such as yuri or futanari that were also loli didn't bother me, although I don't find them sexual so possibly that's why.

Since getting in to a relationship with a child in, I (like Berk) have started to set rules on what I find acceptable or not for a 5/6yo boy to watch that I had never considered before. I sometimes get it wrong, he once took over playing dishonoured and cut one guys head off and threw it in the face of another whilst laughing that they kissed, I laughed, then realised his mum was far from happy. His dad lets him watch mortal kombat and such and he has nightmares from certain things like that, that have stuck in his head. As soon as I learned this, I became even more concerned with making sure what he watches is ok.

I'm still not sure where films like avengers sits because he watches that and it doesn't bother him at all even though there's death and destruction. I think the in-depth depiction of blood and violence is what makes avengers not equal to mortal kombat, but maybe I'm getting that wrong too. I think I sit with the same thought as Berk in that non-consenting, unnecessary and additionally where it's graphic and focused violence is something that I'm happy to shield him from, wouldn't necessarily call that censorship though.

In terms of films I would have classification but not censorship. If you're 18 or older but feel like you don't want to watch things like hostel or whatever, then don't as it's your call but I don't accept that certain scenes should be cut in case it offends my morals or sensibility. People who let their kids of 8-9-10 watch horrific torture porn and then get the daily mail to be outraged for them need to shut the fuck up and accept responsibility for their negligent behaviour (as a side note, see the McCann's deal of how anyone who calls out, rightfully to my mind, their negligence gets shouted down).

Regards press coverage and UKIP or Green, UKIP are making headlines and green aren't, UKIP are in fourth place, green are in seventh, very simple really for me. Press regulation is where it should be imo, the request for new rules to curb them is foolish as everything required is already written in our laws. In terms of both parties and votes, I fail to see why they should green get air time or to demand who else gets when even the snp got more votes than they did in the last election.

Censorship is a funny one for me. I think theres broadly two kinds of thing you could censor when it comes to entertainment, whether thats games or film or whatever.

The first is the stuff thats been discussed so far: "inappropriate" things. At the risk of scaring him again, I mostly agree with Berk on this. Theres stuff that is inappropriate for kids to view, but adults should be pretty much allowed to look at/play/read whatever they want to. There is some evidence that allowing a very young child to play super violent games may affect them long term. Although there's actually not a lot of evidence, and what there is is pretty flimsy, and there is also some evidence to say that this isn't true, so... its far from definitive, but its possible and seems intuitively correct. I certainly dont think there is anything to *gain* from letting a child play graphically violent adult games, especially when there are so many games with no more than cartoon violence that they could be enjoying instead. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that violent games have zero long term effects on adults, and the studies to the contrary are all either terrible science or massively biased (or, more commonly, both) so I don't see any issues there.

The other stuff you could censor is a bit more of a tricky one. There isn't really a name for it as far as I know, but a completely made up example would be a game in which all the bad guys are black and your job as a an upstanding white guy would be to go kill all the black guys. Replace colour for gender, sexual orientation, political leaning or whatever. Its basically the gaming equivalent of hate speech, and although I cant think of any examples as blatant as that it does come up occasionally in a milder form. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all if there really was a "Lesser Race Murder Simulator" out there somewhere. This I think is a much trickier subject. On the face of it, its encouraging racism/homophobia/whatever and that is clearly bad. I think the world would be a better place if that stuff didnt exist and therefore, logically, banning it would make the world a better place. The trouble is, banning stuff like that would certainly take down things that are satirising that kind of attitude, which can be an extremely effective way of countering it. Theres no way of banning one without banning the other without letting the bad stuff slip through by just proclaiming itself to be the good stuff really. Its not something you can objectively measure, so its not something you can easily create a hard an fast rule for.

Which I think is the problem with all censorship. Its all subjective. Its all down to interpretation and individual choice, so its all bloody difficult to make rules for that will be completely correct in all cases. Which makes it all extremely problematic.

The trap we tend to fall into in discussions about censorship is that we talk about it as though we are in some ideal world where everyone is of the same intelligence as us and shares roughly the same viewpoint. Which we are not. We are all of roughly average intelligence here (I would guess) which means there are millions of people in the world less intelligent than us (scary). I would say that the ideal solution would be to just not censor anything and let parents decide what their children can deal with, but unfortunately people are stupid, and therefore some parents are stupid, and therefore some of them will allow their kids to play GTA when they are 4 and therefore the kid could grow up thinking violence is an excellent solution to problems, gangs are cool and calling women bitches is totally OK.

In conclusion: Im fucked if I know.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:Interestingly, the UK has banned "extreme porn", due to some bloke watching violent porn (as I understand it actual rape videos) and then going and raping and murdering some woman.

The UK government's attempts at banning things are often hilariously broken. In this case, what they are banning is defined as “images that depict acts which threaten a person’s life” or “are likely to result in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals”. So although actual rape is a no-no, simulated rape is totally ok (according to this law that is). As is (arguably) most BDSM: its usually stuff that might hurt a lot but doesn't actually do long term damage beyond a bit of bruising. In other words, it is banning porn that is based around stuff that was illegal anyway. So... extra laws that add nothing! Yay!

Its like when they made katanas illegal because a woman went on an anti-katana crusade after her kid got killed in a gang fight. Katanas in the UK are illegal to buy or own, unless you are a martial arts practitioner, historical reenactor, already owned it when the law came in to place or the sword was made before 1954, was made using traditional methods or if it can be classed as a "martial artists weapon". In other words, if you want to go on a mad killing spree with a katana you now need to either get a good one that wont break instantly or know what you are doing with them, or both. Or just get a straight sword, like a Ninjato. Which is exactly the same as a katana except its A) not curved and therefore B) not illegal in any way. More laws that achieve nothing! Woo!

They did the same with airsoft guns.

Mumsnet (IIRC) got wind of one kind that was made in the mid 90s that was loosely convertible into firing ACTUAL BULLETS, in the same way that a vice, hammer and nail make a sniper rifle, so massive petition and suddenly airsoft is somewhat difficult to do, countless thousand children have been saved from toy guns that look a bit like real guns.

Only I can still go out and buy a proper gun shaped air pistol and use that, which will actually hurt people.

I think a key distinction should be whether something is simulated, or real. Torture and murder in horror films is fine as the cast members are perfectly safe and only feigning distress. However I think real-life videos of people causing hurt, such as 'thug punches woman' should be controlled.

The latter serves to desensitise, as videos of this nature are so commonplace that it can lower our tolerance of violent acts. We should be hoping that the perpetrator was dealt with, but that often not the aim of these videos indeed sometimes the aim is to amuse, such as if that same video is retitled 'look at this dumb bitch get knocked out'. Also in this world of paid view-based advertising, someone is making money out of the victims hurt and that doesn't feel right at all.

Generally I find porn with violent scenes uncomfortable watching, it isn't really my thing anyway but even if it were there's always a shadow of doubt there - was this film made ethically, subject to the same concerns for the actor's well-being as a regular film? Some stuff doesn't look like it was, but it's difficult to say, because it's naughty and dirty and embarrassing we don't want to have public debates about where to draw the line, so the certified stuff is widely stolen and posted all over the internet mixed in with the uncertified stuff. What I really hate though is some politician standing up and saying we will ban 'violent porn' without really specifying what they mean by that - no mention of whether it's ethically made - just the inference that anyone who watches it must not be a normal right-minded person thus preventing any dissenting voices.

Children can't always tell fiction from reality, or are sometimes upset by things and are unable to articulate why. That's different for every child and while only responsible parents can judge the effect on their own kids, the people at the censorship boards do have a lot of experience.

Games are a tricky area, hard to place an age-rating on and difficult to decide for yourself as a parent unless you've played it through yourself - which is probably kinda rare. Mostly it's fairly obviously not real, and also a lot of times the actions are player-led rather than story-led, which is more giving you the tools rather than teaching you bad things. Even in GTA there's consequence - he cops will shoot you and you die. I'd rather my kids became a master thief in Tamriel or Los Santos, than a smack-talking troll in CoD - because the former isn't a real thing, but the second is.

The guns and swords thing is a little inconsistent, but the banned items are not without danger. Airsoft guns became massively popular and more than a few kids lost eyes, I had no idea about the katana ban, but I do have a wakizashi I bought since it would have been in place, so that's not exactly comprehensive.

FatherJack wrote:The guns and swords thing is a little inconsistent, but the banned items are not without danger.

But thats exactly my point: if the aim is to reduce the danger then the law they passed is utterly useless as there are other very similar and equally dangerous swords that are still just as easy and legal to acquire. Ignoring for the moment whether swords *should* be controlled, this law totally fails to control swords. So what is the point of it? The only reason for its existence that I can see is so that politicians at the time could say "Look at me! Arent I all proactive in trying to protect your children! Vote for me!!"

Its the old "Doing nothing seems bad, so doing anything must be good" fallacy which, to bring it back around to the subject at hand, I think is responsible for a lot of peoples reasoning when it comes to censorship: "X is bad, we need to do something. Banning X is something, so banning X must be a good thing to do! Anyone arguing that there might be a better approach is against banning X, and is therefore against doing the good thing and is therefore bad!"

My comment was more aimed at berk's comments about airsoft, but you're right.

Where do you draw the line though? When does a katana become any sword, short, long, straight or curved? What happens to all those historical longswords in castles and those reenactment guys? When does it become a dirk, a dagger..a knife? Surely that is just a cooking tool. When does that knife become a cleaver.. a machete? A pair of scissors stabs and a razor cuts just the same as a weapon and a broken bottle can do both.

I agree it's daft that only a very narrow definition of sword is lobbied against, be that for the will of the people they represent or for political point-scoring, both run out of steam when one tries to tie down a sensible scope, by which time the baying hounds have moved on to their next pariah.

So, apparently moderately kinky sex is now banned from porn shot in the uk, cunts.

Weird decision. All it's doing is putting part of a market abroad, since you can still buy and watch it, just not film it here. Probably some misguided attempt at keeping the participants safe.

I forgot this subject was up, should have posted the link here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a- ... 97174.html

Yup, it seems like they can't be arsed with proper legislation to protect sex workers, so they're just banning things arbitrarily, rather than actually doing anything positive.

What. The. Fuck.
Okay, I can see why things like penetration with objects used for violence would be on there, but facesitting, watersports and female ejaculation?
Hell, if you're banning facesitting you might as well go the whole hog and just ban all oral sex and be done with it.

It's such a bizarre choice of things to ban that I'd actually quite like to know the rationality behind each decision, because I'm finding it very hard to think of a legitimate reason.

Yeah, the female ejaculation completely baffles me. How is that offensive to anyone?

Ever got squirt in your eyes? that shit burns.

Oh, so it's to protect cameramen? I guess they have rights too.

Apart from the bias which hints that the list of things to banned was dreamt up right-thinking male party-leader clones, the most disturbing thing is the complete lack of distinction between consensual and involuntary. As if both are equally bad reinforcing the 'who would do this unless forced?' thinking of the above. Driving out of the country and/or underground it now makes it more likely that people are abused or hurt in its making.

Whereas regulating in a way that ensured all participants were safe would have actually done something positive and protected performers, they just take the moral ground of condemning it all as sick and wrong, which obviously only makes everyone more likely to be interested in it, especially politicians who are renowned for this sort of thing.

Ahaha. Ahhhahahaha. Ha. What the fuck, lawmakers. What the fuck.

The porn ban actually only applies to *producers* of pornography in the UK. Its still totally OK for people in the UK to watch weird porn made in other countries. Correct me if im wrong, but I don't think the UK is the biggest producer of the worlds porn. It also only applies to paid for porn, so free stuff is still fine. How many people do you think are out there paying for uk produced BDSM?

What a massive waste of time and effort.

Interesting to see how hard the media is trying to obfuscate that fact in order to make the story more alarming. How very unlike them, making the news needlessly dramatic!