Grand Theft Auto inspires Thai murder

[Jaradu]

So, basically, what it boils down to is freedom versus security? Artistic license versus censorship?

Originally Posted by Cerek Look at the responses in this thread as an example. Every response from the game supporters say the same thing "this kid was crazy already if he tried to imitate a game". What they are really saying is "I LIKE playing this game (or others like it) and I don't want to risk losing a game I like to play."

Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. There is an element of selfishness in my argument - I'll grant you that - just like there's an element of selfishness in yours, too. "I don't want teens playing these particular games, because I want to feel safe when I walk down the street, regardless of the fact that most teens are mature enough to make the distinction between fiction and reality". I don't want the actions of few to dictate the denial of rights to many.

Originally Posted by Cerek Yorick already addressed this - the "right" to artistic freedom is NOT absolute, just as the right to free speech is not. Mass producing anti-social "art" is not an acceptable form of "artistic expression".

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this particular point.

"Be wary of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"

As you may have guessed, I'm quite sceptical of 'authority'

[Firestormalpha]

First, it's spelled sKeptical.
And restricting art isn't the same as restricting information.

[Jaradu]

First, I'm not from the land of the free, home of the brave.
And use your imagination. It's not hard to exchange the word "information" for the word "art" (though I would consider art a form of information anyway). The quote still applies IMO.

[Firestormalpha]

Hmm that's one spelling difference I wasn't aware of between our countries. And while, yes, you can switch the words, they are not interchangeable.

[Bungleau]

If you're American, it's sKeptical. If you're British, it's sCeptical. And apparently if you're Canadian, you can go either way.

At least, according to one site I looked up.

As for restricting (art or information), I think they're related. Artists have been known to use their crafts (spoken, written, drawn, composed, painted, etc.) to further discussion of topics that people prefer to keep hidden.

I think one of the real issues is the line between reality and game. For me, gaming is a way to escape from reality... in the last week, with our dog having had a hip replaced (with complications!), I've had little gaming time, and I've *REALLY* missed that escape Yet I don't confuse gaming and reality (certain late-night dreams about strategy excluded ).

I believe Cerek already mentioned one of the keys in the thread about the kid dressed as the Joker and stealing posters. Becoming an adult means living with the consequences of your actions, and too few people these days appear to be able to look far enough into the future to realize those consequences. Kid thinks that dressing as the Joker makes vandalism okay? Naw. Kid wonders if stealing a taxi is as easy in real life as it is in a game? Should also wonder if getting caught is as likely, or if going to jail is as comfortable... double Nopes.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Jaradu I'm no psychologist, but to me that sounds more like a crazy person who picked up a video game than a sane person who picked up a video game and turned crazy.

Jaradu....That's right, they're always crazy. Whenever someone does a strange antisocial act, it's always because they're completely illogical. Never mind the logic that if a kid immerses themselves in a virtual world where violence is rewarded, it follows that some of the virtual behaviour manifests in reality.

They're always crazy. The whole world is crazy!

(But if the whole world is crazy, and you're not, who's the crazy one?)

And who decides how to shape society and what to shape it into? What if some people disagree? How can you force artists to accept responsibility without denying them their right to artistic freedom?

By making them responsible for the effect of their actions.
One can be convicted for inciting a riot.
One can be convicted for planning a robbery others commit.
Where there are direct and provable cause-effect relationships, hand out culpability.
THAT would make people take responsibility for their words.

I mean, there is a current rap group promoting gay-bashing.
If their fans start bashing gays, why shouldn't the group accept some sort of culpability?
The inverse applys. If someone through art influences people to stop littering, make peace not war, forgive, love or take to the streets protesting injustice, the artist is a hero. Why shouldn't the blade cut both ways?

As for determinations - society determines them. ANTI-SOCIAL behaviour is that which harms the society.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Cerek Yorick already addressed this - the "right" to artistic freedom is NOT absolute, just as the right to free speech is not. Mass producing anti-social "art" is not an acceptable form of "artistic expression".

Agreed.

And something that's been forgotten, what about a person's right to not be subjected to offensive behaviour. I should be free to say what I want to a friend right? My wife? My child? But what about abuse? What about their right to be free from being insulted, threatened and demeaned?

"Free speech" has limits. Art, games and song are all forms of speech.

As said, there's also a difference between free expression, and mass distribution of that expression.

Someone may express anti-semetic ideas. We as a society are not compelled to make sure those expressions go into every living room in America, no matter how free the person is to express those views in private.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Jaradu Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. There is an element of selfishness in my argument - I'll grant you that - just like there's an element of selfishness in yours, too. "I don't want teens playing these particular games, because I want to feel safe when I walk down the street, regardless of the fact that most teens are mature enough to make the distinction between fiction and reality". I don't want the actions of few to dictate the denial of rights to many.

My argument against these types of games have nothing to do with my feeling safe when I walk down the street. It has everything to do with companies mass producing games that graphically glorify committing illegal acts. Stealing, killing and prostitution are ALL illegal. Therefore, it is completely irresponsible for a company to produce a game with a goal for the character to successfully participate in as many of these activities as possible. Producing games that glorify criminal behavior is just as irresponsible as producing games based on tragic school shootings.

Who decides what is appropriate and what isn't? Society. If the medium rewards successfully attempting illegal activities, then it is NOT appropriate, especially for younger members who may be more susceptible to blurring the distinction between virtual actions and real world consequences for those same actions.

[Jaradu]

I wasn't aware that anyone had the right not to be offended. Different people are offended by different things, and by claiming abuse left, right and centre, it would be the quickest end to free speech possible short of totalitarianism.

Originally Posted by Yorick Jaradu....That's right, they're always crazy. Whenever someone does a strange antisocial act, it's always because they're completely illogical. Never mind the logic that if a kid immerses themselves in a virtual world where violence is rewarded, it follows that some of the virtual behaviour manifests in reality. They're always crazy. The whole world is crazy! (But if the whole world is crazy, and you're not, who's the crazy one?)

Do I detect the subtle implication that all players of violent video games are themselves violent?

Allow me to reverse your proposal.

I think that if, in a person, violent behaviour or tendencies manifest themselves in reality, it follows that the kid is more likely to immerse themselves in a virtual world where violence is rewarded.

Correlation does not equal causation, but which one of us is right? There is simply not enough research in this field to know.

[Jaradu]

Originally Posted by Cerek My argument against these types of games have nothing to do with my feeling safe when I walk down the street. It has everything to do with companies mass producing games that graphically glorify committing illegal acts. Stealing, killing and prostitution are ALL illegal. Therefore, it is completely irresponsible for a company to produce a game with a goal for the character to successfully participate in as many of these activities as possible. Producing games that glorify criminal behavior is just as irresponsible as producing games based on tragic school shootings. Who decides what is appropriate and what isn't? Society. If the medium rewards successfully attempting illegal activities, then it is NOT appropriate, especially for younger members who may be more susceptible to blurring the distinction between virtual actions and real world consequences for those same actions.

Ok, so you're saying some video games glorify committing illegal acts, which is irresponsible and can be dangerous for susceptible children.

In the case of adults, they are old enough and responsible enough to decide for themselves whether or not the content is appropriate, and are, for the most part, able to distinguish between reality and virtual reality.

In the case of children, there is a rating on every game which prevents them from playing content inappropriate for their age, and which the parent should take into consideration if buying a game for his or her child. It is not the fault of the game developer if parents don't treat game ratings with the seriousness they treat film ratings.