Zachary Amaranth said:
Not so much a handwave as a demonstration of the lack of any actual power. But feel free to ignore evidence contrary to your claims, it seems it'll be a pattern.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression you've provided evidence. Seventeen years after the CCA was established, Marvel did a short run of comics involving drugs
at the behest of the President of the United States. After which, they immediately went back to issuing comics under the code.
Yes, that break led to a softening of the Code, and may have been the first stumble of its eventual faltering- but again, that was
after seventeen years. And the effects of the Code can still be felt in plenty of the comics that came out in the seventies and eighties.
In the intervening years, the titles that ceased publishing because of the CCA are beyond count.
Tales from the Crypt, The Vault of Horror, Shock SuspenStories and
Crime SuspenStories are just a handful of the ones from one company- EC. The story of
Incredible Science Fiction's demise is particularly harrowing.
If your "evidence" of the lack of the CCA's power is that one publisher with the backing of the White House temporarily went of its leash seventeen years after the code's formation, what can I say- that's a poor excuse for an example, and there's plenty to the contrary.
Neither. I was indicating that odds are you weren't alive in the seventies, as most Escapists are not older than me.
...Sorry to inform you, I'm one of the exceptions. It's on the profile.
Well, no. It was self-imposed in that it was formed within the business, relied on self-policing, and most importantly only had power if people agreed to follow it.
Failing to follow it cost a number of businesses their existence.
Depeds on what you mean by "fact." You appear to be using a proprietary definition.
...I'd settle for the one that presumes a common reality.
You mean like how an AO rating is a kiss of death in the AAA games market? I suppose that's completely different, except for the part where it would render any such game dead in the water.
There have been a whopping
four games given an AO rating that didn't contain blatantly pornographic content, and that's probably being generous to
Leisure Suit Larry: Magma Cum Laude.
Thrill Kill was quashed by EA before it ever came out.
Larry,
Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit, and
Manhunt 2 all released M-rated versions, though the original AO versions of each are still available.
The year after the ESRB was put into place,
Mortal Kombat 3 was released. The year after the CCA was put into place,
Incredible Science Fiction ceased publishing. By some accounts, because the head of the CCA had it in for the publisher.
It's still censorship. It sounds like you're saying censorship is okay if the intent is right. I have trouble believing that's what you mean, but that would be consistent with your current statement. However, you just railed against people for saying something trivial wasn't censorship by using another, larger, dated example of self-censorship.
If I decide I want my child to play
GTA V, or watch
Saw, or listen to death metal, I can do that. Within the law. Up until child protection services make it part of a case file, anyway. That's a choice I can make as an adult.
I can't do that if other adults feel they can make the decision for me that
I, an adult, can't purchase those products at all.
I also have to confess to some confusion, as 1) wasn't the original premise that it was somehow meaningful that the removal of a product
wasn't censorship as it wasn't universal or done by a government body? Yet you just referred to the ESRB as censorship. Also, 2) If you accept the notion that making a game unavailable to children is censorship, it would seem to follow that denying children the right to vote is disenfranchisement.
Kind of like how retailers in America won't stock games that fall into AO.
Some, like
Fry's, do, actually, but that's beside the point. That (incredibly rare) AO rating was given by someone whose job was to assess its content, not by a random person shopping in an entirely different department second-guessing that rater.
I'm sure the curt answers are satisfying to type, but they lack substance.
It's not very clearly in the latter. I'd also note that this is a criticism heavily leveled against both the MPAA and ESRB in America, and other such bodies in other countries. You can say it's totally different until you're blue in the face, but from here it looks like you're either completely oblivious to the facts or you're trying to artificially distinguish censorship you're okay with with the kind you're not okay with.
I will be the first to admit that the ESRB and the MPAA are far from perfect, especially the latter. But they do have the benefit of being actual bodies that one can refer to, that one can ask for a hearing or a reassessment from, that have rules that one can argue have or haven't been breached, and those rules can be changed. They're not an ad-hoc mob that isn't even accountable for whether the product they want to see removed from the shelves actually displays the qualities they're admonishing it for.
There may have been cases where the ESRB or the MPAA worked with the intention of stifling a product altogether, rather than giving its creators the choice whether to edit it or publish and damn the consequences, but I'm not aware of any- and particularly with the ESRB, all documentation I can find bears this out.
If you don't see a difference there, I'm not sure I can help you.
