The Big Picture: Don't Censor Me!

[Lemmibl]

So the only thing I came out with after this episode is a strange sense of delight over the fact that you had a picture of a traditional swedish christmas dinner (Aka julbord. Sounds familiar? Think smorgasbord) @ 03:30.

... I have no regrets.

 

[faeshadow]

What it's called doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

All you're doing is engaging in BS semantics arguments. "But it's not censorship!" Who cares? It's still wrong and people should stop doing it.

The problem is that if we draw a line and say that what happened to the Dixie Chicks was wrong, we are also potentially saying that any other situation in which me try to petition advertisers is also wrong. If a certain company I was fond of was providing advertising revenue to a group I utterly detested, I might be quite right to petition that company to stop funding these assholes. I don't want to have that avenue closed off to me by a hard and fast rule that says these kinds of boycotts are wrong.

I say this knowing full well that one of the more recent schemes for some gamergate supporters is to enact mass letter campaigns against companies who advertise on the game websites they don't like. I happen to think it is very tacky to try and disrupt the revenue stream to a website because you don't like their articles, but I still think they should have the power to do that.

That's not a problem at all. It is not what is done, but how it was done, and why. A person shouldn't have to worry about losing their revenue and having their work set on fire because they merely expressed disappointment in a politician. It would be one thing if one of the Dixie Chicks admitted to committing a crime or said something horribly bigoted, but all they did was say they don't like that a certain politician is from their state.

 

[The Deadpool]

Telling people they can't post things that were hateful, morally objectionable, racist, or threatening got me a lot of flack about me 'censoring' them and 'violating' their free speech.

It WAS censorship. It WAS violating free speech. It just wasn't illegal. And likely not immoral either.

The problem is that America worships free speech as a concept, but hates it as a fact...

 

[faeshadow]

Telling people they can't post things that were hateful, morally objectionable, racist, or threatening got me a lot of flack about me 'censoring' them and 'violating' their free speech.

It WAS censorship. It WAS violating free speech. It just wasn't illegal. And likely not immoral either.

The problem is that America worships free speech as a concept, but hates it as a fact...

Well, you're half right. It was censorship, but it wasn't violating "free speech", since "free speech" is a reference to the First Amendment of the Constitution, which admin censorship doesn't apply to.

 

[abort_user]

Wow so many things wrong with this. It's sad because MovieBob is usually pretty great. First off "dork" never meant whale's penis. It is slang for penis but the whale stuff is just a myth. Even if it wasn't a myth it's still a terrible analogy (for the reason used in my final point). Second you aren't giving your audience enough credit. When people say "censor" they can mean it in a way that's not government censorship. In fact, they generally do. Government censorship is bad, but people think different types of censorship are also bad. Remember you do not define words. Words are defined by usage. If everyone is making claims about such and such being "censored" and you disagree, odds are you are in the wrong.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.

Yeah, this is what drives me nuts. A better way to say this would be to say that what happened to the Dixie Chicks absolutely was censorship, but that it just wasn't government censorship, and therefore didn't fall under First Amendment protection.

What people like Mr. Chipman here, or Jim Sterling or Anita Sarkeesian are doing is not censorship of any kind?it's media and cultural criticism. The rest of the video actually does explain that, of course, but still ... How about rather than change the meaning of the word "censor" to fit the dopey, single-purpose (and broadly incorrect) usage to which it has fallen prey, we educate people to understand the difference?

Sorry?just had to get that off my chest. Great video, otherwise!

You see that's were Bob was saying you get into the technical and practical definitions of the word. Under the technical dictionary definition, yes you could call that censorship, but under the practical common use (and when I say "common use" I mean use by anyone who understands that an opinion expressed against something they don't like is not censorship) definition, it really isn't. Sure it was an unjust backlash against an unpopular opinion, but can't really be called censorship.

My point is that this is not a case of "technical" vs. "practical" definitions, so much as "actual" vs. "frequently misunderstood and incorrect" definitions. What country radio stations did was remove songs they had previously played from their rotation because they didn't like what the artists in question said. That is censorship, plain and simple.

It is not, however, government censorship. Personally, I agreed 100% with what the Dixie Chicks said, but no private person or entity has to promote views with which they disagree (nor people who hold those views), so the radio station owners/managers were within their rights to censor them. Just because they weren't government officials, however, doesn't make it not censorship. It's private censorship, which, again, is legal.

And I don't know about Anita, but certainly anyone who's calling for the re-examination of popular culture and the tropes therein, and suggesting that a few changes need to be made is not calling for censorship.

Well, that's exactly what Ms. Sarkeesian is doing, so no, she isn't calling for censorship. She's calling producers of popular culture content (including video games) to examine their own output and be a little less lazy and a little more thoughtful about what they're producing. At no point has she said they shouldn't be allowed, whether by law or by any other censoring body, to produce what they want?she's simply going through a process of examination and criticism.

That's what I never understood the huge backlash against her. If she were actually trying to promote some sort of legislation, or organizing a boycott against game developers or publishers until she gets what she wants, I could see being upset. All she's doing, though, is pointing out what she and many other people see as problems in the content.

Hey I'm not a linguist so I'm not going to split hairs over what is and is not censorship.

As for Anita, I've never understood the backlash against her either. It never seemed to me that she was doing anything that would affect any of the people who were attacking her. All she was doing was examining video game tropes and saying "Hey maybe we should try and do something different." I don't know, I've never watched her videos.

 

[6037084]

To be precise, humans are one race. This is what I meant

The term 'race' is a stupid thing to begin with. Originally race was used to differentiate populations with different languages but over time that changed into what we have today, a fuzzy term with no real meaning. What really should be done is classifying humans into subspecies but no one has the balls to actually do that.
If you meant that all humans are basically the same and the differences between populations are negligible then you're just being silly. Genetic differences between very distant populations is massive, and if humans weren't considered special snowflakes we would have been classified into different subspecies ages ago.

But that's me getting off topic on subjects that interest me. Thank god there is no censorship to censor my post :^).

The video was interesting, even though I didn't agree with some of it, reasons why have already been explained in more depth than I can be bothered to in this thread.

 

[aceman67]

It WAS censorship. It WAS violating free speech. It just wasn't illegal.

No, it wasn't censorship. When they signed up, just as you've signed up here on the Escapist, you agreed to the terms of use. Part of those ToU, you agree to follow the rules, and you agreed that Mods/Admins are allowed to take appropriate actions if those rules/ToU are violated.

When I Edited/Deleted posts that violated rules, it wasn't censorship, it was enforcing the rules, rules they agreed to and thereby gave me permission by agreeing to the ToU to do so.

At the time when I was a mod at Animeonline, the Servers were located in Canada, and were subject to Canadian law, which has Hate Crime and Hate Speech legislation. When I edited/deleted posts that were hateful and/or threatening to specific groups, I was well with in my rights under the law.

At one time I actually had to report the content of a post to the RCMP because a credible threat was made on someones physical well-being.

I also had to report someone to the RCMP and FBI's joint child pornography task force for posted content by a user.

I only edited/deleted posts that violated the sites rules, which included hateful/sexist/racist/threatening material, posts that contained objectionable/illegal material.

NEVER did I edit or delete posts to suppress things I disagreed with.

Internet forums are like private businesses, they are not public spaces. The owners of such places have the right to allow/disallow anything they want as long as it is legal. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

 

[ryukage_sama]

But I'm not saying don't say something is bad, by all means be critical, but there is a vast difference between "This is bad, this doesn't work because... had you considered trying... instead?" and (this isn't aimed at Anita, just more the amorphous mass we call Tumblr) "This is bad, because I find it personally offensive, if you like it, you're a bad person and should feel bad," one is a discussion and the kind of thing I'm trying to promote, the other, which is often how people phrase things, not just when talking about video games either, but movies or books or any media or art, isn't a discussion, it's an accusatory statement that's closed minded and not promoting discussion.

I mean I think lot's of things are bad and I can tell you why I think so, acknowledge as either a critical flaw in the work (Why aren't those scientists in Prometheus very scientific?) or if it's just a case of personal opinion (The aesthetic of Braid is really off putting to me), people seem less and less able to separate themselves from their opinions or criticize something they like (I love Tenchi Muyo, but sometimes the plot makes confusing jumps without context). It's not so much a case of blunting ones argument I'm asking, I'm asking people to actually argue and debate instead of just shriek vitriol because you didn't like something and think anyone who does like it is a big meany poopy face and should shut up.

I feel the notion that accusations from video game critics (be they reviewers, academics or protesters) do anything to suppress discussion is demonstrably false. I understand that people are more likely to respond with vitriol over reason when they feel accused, but I haven't felt accused by Anita. I've seen plenty of people make better arguments than she, but I haven't felt accused of being a bad person for liking the things she's criticizing. I'm sure there are those who label fans of sex appeal and violence are inherently "bad people", but those accusations aren't coming from the most published/publicized of the activist critics. I'm sure Anita has accused some people of being bad people, but for their actions in response to her position rather than as a prerequisite that follows from playing GTA and Hitman.

From a sociological perspective, its valuable to examine media as both cause and effect in societal behaviors and values. Making a connection between the two isn't accusatory. Its part of academic discussion and parlance.

 

[Something Amyss]

It WAS censorship. It WAS violating free speech. It just wasn't illegal. And likely not immoral either.

The problem is that America worships free speech as a concept, but hates it as a fact...

He already covered the free speech bit:

The first amendment only protects you from the government stopping you from saying something, not the rest of the country telling you not to say something.

The problem is that people tend not to understand what "free speech" entails.

 

[Something Amyss]

I understand that people are more likely to respond with vitriol over reason when they feel accused, but I haven't felt accused by Anita.

The reason that so many have appears to rely directly on what Bob mentions in this video: that nerds have a strong identity tie with their hobbies and pastimes. That is, they tend to perceive criticism of the hobby as criticism of them personally. That it's viewed as an attack appears to be a slightly different but possibly related phenomenon.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Pre-Watch: Let me guess Bob's going to pretend government mandated censorship is the only meaning of the word.

Post-watch: Nintendo getting rid of the blood in Mortal Kombat is also censorship. I'm not going to cite the dictionary but there's another practical definition of the word. Whenever you see something blurred or hear something beeped on TV, that's censorship. Even if the artist/source material/etc. wanted it that way its still censorship.

And did you really mean to imply that the FCC isn't government censorship? If no then that was a really unfortunate choice of clip to use when saying that no one owes you a venue, if yes then I'm just baffled as to how you can say it isn't.

It's government backed restrictions on what people can put on TV and radio. And the government does not own either of those mediums.

 

[WhiteNachos]

It WAS censorship. It WAS violating free speech. It just wasn't illegal. And likely not immoral either.

The problem is that America worships free speech as a concept, but hates it as a fact...

He already covered the free speech bit:

The first amendment only protects you from the government stopping you from saying something, not the rest of the country telling you not to say something.

The problem is that people tend not to understand what "free speech" entails.

Free speech has a legal definition and a more general definition.

Legally it's not free speech suppression but the general definition is 'the idea that other people get to say what they want and you shouldn't try to stop them from being able to say it' (I can't think of a less vague way to put it). If a bunch of citizens put on a book burning it wouldn't be censorship under the legal definition if the government didn't endorse it.

Kind of like theft. Civil Asset forefeiture is not legally theft, but it is. The death penalty is not legally murder but I think it is (my argument: if someone was sentenced to death, exhausted every appeal and you barged in the courtroom and shot them they'd get you for murder)

 

[The Deadpool]

Well, you're half right. It was censorship, but it wasn't violating "free speech", since "free speech" is a reference to the First Amendment of the Constitution, which admin censorship doesn't apply to.

Free speech is not unique to the United States, nor the Bill of Rights.

Free speech is the idea that you can say whatever you want wherever you want. Anything that limits that is a violation of your free speech. When you tell me I can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, you ARE violating my free speech. You are doing it for a GOOD CAUSE, but it doesn't change what you're doing it.

Not every bit of censorship or free speech barriers are illegal. Nor are they all for bad reasons. IT DOESN'T MAKE THEM DIFFERENT THINGS. You don't get to change the meaning of words just to make it sound better.

No, it wasn't censorship. When they signed up, just as you've signed up here on the Escapist, you agreed to the terms of use.

Right. I agreed to give them the power TO CENSOR ME in exchange of having the right to speak here at all.

Again, you are confusing "censorship" with "terrible thing that must never be done under any circumstances." Which is kinda common among Americans...

I was well with in my rights under the law.

I know. Which is why I said "It wasn't illegal."

You were within your rights to censor them. Hell, considering your position, you HAD to censor them. And, considering things I have seen in forums, most of the time you were probably justified in censoring them.

It was STILL censoring.

The owners of such places have the right to allow/disallow anything they want as long as it is legal.

Again, I repeat from the original post: It WAS censorship. It just wasn't illegal.

The two are not the same thing.

 

[Don Incognito]

Telling people they can't post things that were hateful, morally objectionable, racist, or threatening got me a lot of flack about me 'censoring' them and 'violating' their free speech.

It WAS censorship. It WAS violating free speech. It just wasn't illegal. And likely not immoral either.

The problem is that America worships free speech as a concept, but hates it as a fact...

Well, you're half right. It was censorship, but it wasn't violating "free speech", since "free speech" is a reference to the First Amendment of the Constitution, which admin censorship doesn't apply to.

It's not censorship either.

If a bunch of people walk into my office, stand in the lobby, and rant and rave about anything and nothing in particular, it is not censorship if I make them leave.

 

[The Deadpool]

It's not censorship either.

If a bunch of people walk into my office, stand in the lobby, and rant and rave about anything and nothing in particular, it is not censorship if I make them leave.

Kinda.

It is justified. It is righteous. It is legal.

But it is also breaching their free speech.

 

[Brockyman]

So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.

Let's see

Censorship (government force suppression of speech not someone shared and opinion you don't like)

Racism (believe a race genetically is inferior to yours OR your race is genetically superior than all others, not "I don't like rap music"

Homophobia (phobia literally means "FEAR" which if this was a true word, then people would literally run away screaming or stop functioning when they saw a gay person, sort of like with heights and spiders for arcophobia and arachnophobia people would)

Misogyny (contempt or prejudice against the female gender by men, not "my like of the sexuality of the female from makes me view women as objects or lesser beings... b/c it doesn't)

Feel free to add to the list

 

[Mik Sunrider]

It's not censorship either.

If a bunch of people walk into my office, stand in the lobby, and rant and rave about anything and nothing in particular, it is not censorship if I make them leave.

Kinda.

It is justified. It is righteous. It is legal.

But it is also breaching their free speech.

Your right to free speech ends when you violate my right not to listen to you. Come to my home or work place and spout off about stuff I don't care to listen to, I have every right to have you toss out or slam the door in your face. I do it to church groups and whinny commie wanna be all the time. You have the God given right to say whatever you want but no one said anyone had to care enough to listen.
Censorship is government telling you want you have to say to avoid fines, jail time or having your head remove from your shoulders. Everything else is just people not caring about your opinion.

 

[Stephen St.]

Free speech has a legal definition and a more general definition.

Legally it's not free speech suppression but the general definition is 'the idea that other people get to say what they want and you shouldn't try to stop them from being able to say it' (I can't think of a less vague way to put it). If a bunch of citizens put on a book burning it wouldn't be censorship under the legal definition if the government didn't endorse it.

Kind of like theft. Civil Asset forefeiture is not legally theft, but it is. The death penalty is not legally murder but I think it is (my argument: if someone was sentenced to death, exhausted every appeal and you barged in the courtroom and shot them they'd get you for murder)

I'd say that's the difference between what's legal and what's moral. It's legal to try to silence someone you disagree with, but it isn't moral as long as you aren't defending your own freedom (against lies or being insulted, for example).

Free speech is not unique to the United States, nor the Bill of Rights.

Free speech is the idea that you can say whatever you want wherever you want. Anything that limits that is a violation of your free speech. When you tell me I can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, you ARE violating my free speech. You are doing it for a GOOD CAUSE, but it doesn't change what you're doing it.

Not every bit of censorship or free speech barriers are illegal. Nor are they all for bad reasons. IT DOESN'T MAKE THEM DIFFERENT THINGS. You don't get to change the meaning of words just to make it sound better.

Every exception from the rule can be phrased as part of the rule. If "free speech" is based on "freedom", then it only allows actions that are in accordance with the general principle of freedom. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre isn't, because you are violating the freedom of the other guests. So it isn't freedom of speech.

I know. Which is why I said "It wasn't illegal."

You were within your rights to censor them. Hell, considering your position, you HAD to censor them. And, considering things I have seen in forums, most of the time you were probably justified in censoring them.

It was STILL censoring.

So censorship isn't always a bad thing, which means that "that's censorship" isn' an argument against someones behavior, right?

 

[Rellik San]

#you can't hurry -snip-, you just have to -snip-, she said -snip- don't come easy, it's a game of -snip- and take. How long must I -snip-, how much -snip must I take? Before -snip-iness, will cause my -snip-, -snip- to break#

(Sorry listening to Phil Collins as I write this)

(Yes I know the Supremes did it originally, but I like Phils version too)

I feel the notion that accusations from video game critics (be they reviewers, academics or protesters) do anything to suppress discussion is demonstrably false. I understand that people are more likely to respond with vitriol over reason when they feel accused, but I haven't felt accused by Anita. I've seen plenty of people make better arguments than she, but I haven't felt accused of being a bad person for liking the things she's criticizing. I'm sure there are those who label fans of sex appeal and violence are inherently "bad people", but those accusations aren't coming from the most published/publicized of the activist critics. I'm sure Anita has accused some people of being bad people, but for their actions in response to her position rather than as a prerequisite that follows from playing GTA and Hitman.

From a sociological perspective, its valuable to examine media as both cause and effect in societal behaviors and values. Making a connection between the two isn't accusatory. Its part of academic discussion and parlance.

But that's not demonstrable evidence, that's anecdotal evidence... just because you don't feel accused doesn't mean others don't and don't get me wrong I don't think we need all criticism to be a big carebear love in of epic proportions... but again there is a difference between: "The audience for this are clearly sick, depraved bastards" and "this game has waaaaay too much sex and violence for it's own good."

And yes whilst Anita doesn't... well rarely engages in such levels of comment about the audience (her show is more about the potential effect on the media's audience than the audience itself, I get this... why when I comment that cultural criticism for games needs changing people automatically point and go "ANITA DON'T DO DAT!" I don't care what Anita does, she isn't the target of my criticism, a point I've iterated 3 times in this thread now (I guess I know how those cultural critics feel now, )), her arguments you can't deny, on the surface are presented that way, usually by 3rd parties I'll give you an example:

HEADLINE:
"Enita says: 'Dragon Effect 5: Unity of the Reckoning of the Inquisitors Dawn of Bhaal' love scenes are rapey."

BYLINE:
"Controversial culture critic chastises copulation in videogame fans of game go nuts." (I love my use of alliteration there )
"Enita Farkeesian, bane of videogamers the world over has called love scenes in new AAA EA Bioware RPG emotionally manipulative and even taking advantage of a situation... ...but she has faced online backlash of trolls threatening her on twitter."

ACTUAL LINE IN CONTEXT:
"It feels a bit like the NPC's you interact with have no agency, you have to actively pursue them as opposed to them expressing an interest in you, it feels a bit like you have to ware them down and ware down their resolve... not aided by the "love" scene usually taking place after a moment that character has been emotionally vulnerable. One could see it a mechanical foible but to the broader culture it looks like emotional manipulation, here's perhaps another to approach it... etc etc..."

ACTUAL TWITTER QUOTE:
"@FemForce I disagree with your point, because... ...Maybe I could see it if it was more physically rapey."
@FemForce TWITTER FOLLOWER IN RESPONSE:
"@GameDev @FemForce ZOMG! HE SAID RAPE! HE GON RAPE HER! PATRIARCHY CIS SCUM!"

But you won't see that line in the article, instead there'll be a link to the video, not even time stamped to the section in question. The worst bit is, this is how 90% of the press phrase the debate, this is what I'm talking about with controversial click baiting, not encouraging debate and in general fuelling the vitriol because that grabs far more attention, from both White Knights and Trolls and people with genuine questions or concerns lumped in with either party because someone in the other party didn't like what they said go. As I said... it's not a discussion at that point.

And say what you will, but both of us... and I'd wager everyone here... at some point has seen this happen, maybe not with Anita... maybe with TotalBiscuit saying:

ACTUAL QUOTE:
"I personally don't think this is a game, as it has no real failure state and doesn't have anything like a challenge to it, it's more of a virtual art piece and that's fine."

TWITTER RESPONSE:
"@TBGarmz OMG A GRIL DV MAD THAT U MYSOGYNERD WHITE BASTARD!"
TWITTER RESPONSE TO TWITTER RESPONSE BY THIRD PARTY:
"@TBGarmz @TwitTwit You're talking out of your arse you stupid *****! There's no sexism here, now get to the kitchen LOLZ"

HEADLINE:
"Prominent YouTube personality issues policy on what is and isn't a video game."
BYLINE
"TotalBiscuit issued a statement today that we all shouldn't consider games such as 'Dear Alfred' and feminist game creator Chloe Quint's critically lauded masterpiece "Gone Shops" video games because they don't meet his standard."

See how this happens and it happens on all sides from all sections of the media, I'm not specifically saying it's the culture critics, more the amorphous mass of reactionaries around them, that are the problem... unfortunately it's that mass of reactionaries that dictates the debate, they are the ones with the social media agendas to push and are so often protective of their chosen champions cause (WOO more alliteration) that they create an echo chamber for all involved.