Hate Speech

[arcanine]

Absolutely, which is why this specifies 'movements that preach intolerance and persecution' as the only ones which should be banned by law. You have to put in effort and be outspoken about it to be intolerant. If you just keep your head down and go about your day, nobody is going to randomly accuse you of being a homophobe just because you walked by a gay pride parade without dancing. Tolerance is almost always the easier path.

I'd love to believe that, but sadly it isn't true:

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/l...entation-and-transgender-identity-hate-crime/

I quote:

What is a homophobic or transphobic hate incident?

Something is a homophobic or transphobic hate incident if the victim or anyone else thinks it was carried out because of hostility or prejudice based on sexual orientation or transgender identity.

This means that if you believe something is a hate incident, it should be recorded as this by the person you are reporting it to.

(emphasis added). So in the UK, if you innocently and accidentally refer to a trans person as the wrong gender, and they believe this was done out of hostility or prejudice, the police are required to record this as a hate crime. Whether they prosecute or not is not the point. It will go on that person's record as a crime. I work with children and have to disclose my (clean) criminal record. Can you imagine what it would do to my career if some SJW rad-left nutcase didn't like the fact that I said "dude" and reported me for hate crime?

 

[FAST6191]

Back when I were a lad I found myself doing the whole 90s hacker thing. Which is to say information wanted to be free, actions talk, bring logic (not feelings) to your arguments and people will listen, and everything else was so much noise ( https://joshhighland.com/2007/08/28/mentors-last-words-the-hacker-manifesto/ ). Back then most of the push back seemed to be coming from religious types that wanted all sorts of things banned (a good starting point being the nonsense that was the various satanic panics in the US). Today they have died off, or become an easily ignored element (probably as religion died as well), but the new push seems to come from people that seem to want to deem knowledge as a construct and go from there. This leads to a lot of very odd things I find myself disliking. It also seems to have glommed onto some flavour of left wing politics (stretching and diluting things too) and that makes me somewhat sad as in there somewhere are the things I would like to see in the world, probably will still happen but a lot slower and with some hiccups along the way.

Horse shit. If you're yelling racial slurs directly at an individual, the purpose is no longer free speech. Your intention is to attack that individual directly and infringe on their ability to express their first amendment rights. Your intention is to make that person feel less than human, and thus no longer have constitutional rights at all.

I just farted and will deem it an attack as you describe on you. Such a thing has likely made not a whit of difference to your day, life, or ability to get on with either.
Though I suppose a further quote of yours actually says it better

Regardless, they only have as much power as you grant them in your own mind.

On the "should (some) form of hate speech be outlawed" topic.

We actually have such laws in germany - where using Nazi slogans, symbols, or historical revisionism of what happened in those days, is actually outlawed.

And I have to admit, I've never been able to make myself think, that that was a bad thing. (It has two functions basically, first making the lives of the victims of that regime, in country, at least somewhat bareable - second, to have a cut towards the pull those symbols and speeches had in the past, but it also allowed for society to not speak about those things at all (which lead to a minor "revolution" in the sixties, where the younger generation confronted their parents/the power elites)).

But this is held up as an exception to the rule. Its made special, by no one even attempting to get other stuff placed near that mode of censorship. So it hasnt become a slippery slope - that ended in a totalitarian vision of society.

And what country in Europe is responsible for most of the censorship we saw in games?

Obviously you don't understand Socialism in the least if you think it's compatible with one person controlling all the money and power. Stalin/Mussolini/Hitler never ruled over Socialist nations, they were purely dictatorships. Like I said, they used the promise of Socialism to keep workers happy, but ultimately it was never about shifting the focus of power to the workers. Those men were "Socialist" in the same way that modern-day Republicans are "Christian." Almost entirely lip service.

Maybe dictionary socialism has never quite been managed but when every attempt to go whole hog, whether independently or seeded, has gone down such a path, or exploded before even getting there, one does tend be a bit wary. You might even ask if it can practicably be achieved.

I concede that extremists and violence can come from either side. It's not usually a big deal if extremist groups are just beating the shit out of each other. I'm not sure about there, however, but in America, deadly attacks on innocent victims have come almost exclusively from right-wing extremists lately. 'PC' culture is a problem that needs reigned in, but it's not life-threatening. Now, when the president starts attacking freedom of the press, then you know you've got a big fucking problem based on historical context alone. I don't think even Trump is stupid enough to try to repeal the first amendment, but he did question the legality of 'Saturday Night Live' recently, so who knows.

But I digress: the problem isn't necessarily hate speech in isolated incidents. The problem is normalization of and de-sensitization to hate speech. Hitler's rise to power and subsequent consolidation of power didn't happen over night. The hearts and minds of the people had to be slowly poisoned against a singular scapegoat first.

If they are going to beat each other in a field in the middle of nowhere, fix any injuries caused themselves out of their own pockets and promptly slink off then while still not ideal so be it. When people start blocking streets, damaging public property, attacking police and otherwise being a nuisance I can't see ignoring them as being a good way to set about things.

Similarly one does not have to be deadly to be life altering. There are plenty of examples of extreme left types attacking people, frequently without any justification.

As for tolerance of intolerance then I am still going with unless direct incitement (be it kill that guy, or kill all purple eyed people) is involved then it gets to play, with some limited scope for prior actions informing future assembly options. By all means laugh at, counter and disparage the notions put forth but to utterly deny them the right to have a go... nah. If the world is not big enough and ugly enough to take it then may something better arise which can.

 

[notimp]

Hitlers rise to power has very little to do with scapegoating any particular group.

That sounds like historical revisonism to me...

Mr Hilters rise to power had only to do with scapegoating a particular group, sounds much more true to me.

I mean, have you heard his speeches? (Sportpalast, ... ) Hilter was a _nothing_ but a gifted speaker. And he used the populist mold to rise to power.

And that is basically scapegoating 1-o-1. Scapegoating the movie.

Here is it in principal.

We all know, that people have it bad today. And its the fault of our common enemy the eurasians. As everyone knows, the eurasians are bad people, they steel your money by giving you credit, and have those big noses, and brown skin. Now lets all confiscate their wealth, and build autobahns with it (or walls?) - whos with me?

Then you feed them some "you are the chosen people" stuff, and strip up a war economy in no time, because you also had them march in lockstep, which made them feel strong. And what did they have in mind while doing so? Fighting the enemy. The eurasians, the polish people, the french, the british, the russians, the americans, the... Wait a minute... I think there is scapegoating going on..

Damn mexicans! (*I kid, i kid...*)

Also - can we please not let this end on godwins law.. Americans fascination with fashist germany, I tell you...

 

[Xzi]

I just farted and will deem it an attack as you describe on you. Such a thing has likely made not a whit of difference to your day, life, or ability to get on with either.
Though I suppose a further quote of yours actually says it better

My quote doesn't really apply any more when we're talking about the people in power. Far-right extremists rise to power all the time, and that's why we have to stay vigilant in order to keep the racists/bigots from rallying behind a single racist/bigot leader.

Maybe dictionary socialism has never quite been managed but when every attempt to go whole hog, whether independently or seeded, has gone down such a path, or exploded before even getting there, one does tend be a bit wary. You might even ask if it can practicably be achieved.

Indeed, a purely Socialist system would be hard to implement properly. The core idea is solid if a bit overly-aggressive, which is why Socialism-inspired programs work better when implemented piecemeal in a Democracy.

As for tolerance of intolerance then I am still going with unless direct incitement (be it kill that guy, or kill all purple eyed people) is involved then it gets to play, with some limited scope for prior actions informing future assembly options. By all means laugh at, counter and disparage the notions put forth but to utterly deny them the right to have a go... nah. If the world is not big enough and ugly enough to take it then may something better arise which can.

It would be different if intolerance accomplished anything whatsoever, but it never does. It doesn't advance a conversation or debate. It doesn't make for a salient point. The only purpose is to attack the other for not being exactly like you. The world has been down the 'ugly' road of hatred and bigotry numerous times already, we shouldn't need a fourth reich just to be taught this lesson again. Tolerating intolerance simply does not work. It's the fastest possible path to everyone losing their freedom of speech along with other rights.

 

[Kigiru]

Hate Speech = A nice looking buzzword used by vile people to look like they have a point and attack others. Just push hard enough that someone's using "disgusting hate speech" to assault any minorities and you can win any argument in modern days. And considering how the definition of it is extremely vague and unclear, you can easly declare that everything is a hate speech. Some people tried to push that T-Posing, ok-sign or a fucking milk are hateful, remember it.

Paraphrasing old saying about dildos - "Everything is a hate speech if you are bravestupid enough."

 

[barronwaffles]

We all know, that people have it bad today. And its the fault of our common enemy the eurasians. As everyone knows, the eurasians are bad people, they steel your money by giving you credit, and have those big noses, and brown skin. Now lets all confiscate their wealth, and build autobahns with it (or walls?) - whos with me?

Wow, a reductionist version of history with very little basis in reality.

 

[notimp]

Its a mix of history, the 1984 narrative, and Trumps way into power, yes.

But the part how "blaming the jew" gave a germany suffering under economic depression, some common "thing" to unite against, is very true. Sadly.

If I paid enough attention in my lectures, the "blaming the jew" narrative at the time didnt start with the Nazis, but by god did they use the living sh*t out of it, and by god did they "make up for it". (They made them nice bands they had to wear on their arms, and fashioned nice songs about them, and printed advertising - that featured them, and they even made them a final solution. And those are about the limits of talking about this stuff cynically.)

Them using the confiscated wealth to actually bootstrap the first "economic revival" - actually also was a thing. All in all maybe less important than giving people a common enemy again (a minority oh how fitting...). But the truth nevertheless.

 

[FAST6191]

My quote doesn't really apply any more when we're talking about the people in power. Far-right extremists rise to power all the time, and that's why we have to stay vigilant in order to keep the racists/bigots from rallying behind a single racist/bigot leader.


Indeed, a purely Socialist system would be hard to implement properly. The core idea is solid if a bit overly-aggressive, which is why Socialism-inspired programs work better when implemented piecemeal in a Democracy.


It would be different if intolerance accomplished anything whatsoever, but it never does. It doesn't advance a conversation or debate. It doesn't make for a salient point. The only purpose is to attack the other for not being exactly like you. The world has been down the 'ugly' road of hatred and bigotry numerous times already, we shouldn't need a fourth reich just to be taught this lesson again. Tolerating intolerance simply does not work. It's the fastest possible path to everyone losing their freedom of speech along with other rights.

OK. A goal I applaud even. Do it some other way than sacrificing the ability to say things.

Don't disagree with the latter, however that is not what we were discussing there. Go a different version. We want to do a perpetual motion machine and thus we talk about ways of lowering entropy -- theoretical physics allows for all sorts of cool things, and some things beyond that, it would be of a fairly minimal practical value as far as actually engineering anything to even come close.

Stereotyping works to an extent. It is a poor way and will cause you to miss out on things, and others to miss out on things (one day which may include you), and would happily discourage it and things that fall from it. Similarly the right to talk does not mean the requirement to say something salient. I wish it did happen more than it does but that is a different discussion.
I still say drive someone underground (especially in such a poor way as borderline word filter*) and you give them mystique and such. Allow them to spew utter bollocks, and just as importantly others to counter it, and they get laughed at. In higher levels of debate you are encouraged to learn the "normal" arguments and counter arguments for a given subject and I would say such a thing applies up and down the levels. Or if you prefer I don't expect a person to be able to cover developmental psychology, history of society, history of the world, geography, animal biology, plant biology, group psychology... to know why various people groups were in the positions they were in and probabilities of things today, however I do expect that they have met a black guy that is more than capable and thus know it can be done so when someone says some dubiously sourced nonsense they can say "hold on".
Even if that effect was far diminished I still can't get to it being a if it is allowed it will inevitably wreck shit, or stand a far too high a chance of doing such. Leaving aside the nature of modern war between people that can handle themselves (something we have never really seen), and nature of modern legal codes (far from perfect but far more robust than they were) making for interesting modifiers compared to past events** I would look to economics -- those that willingly slice out a class of capables are going to fail in the years to come as things trend in that direction with automation and whatnot -- as it stands today I have routinely seen people with more interesting skill sets interviewed, hired and sidelined or put in a proverbial play pen waiting to come online as people realise they are going to need all they can get and it is a limited resource.

Similarly it need not be "exactly like you" -- it is entirely possible to be a racist straight person who is happy to have the gays around.

*the drip fed stuff we might have each done to inculcate people against things they might not fully comprehend at this moment works almost as well if applied to less than ideal concepts.

 

[Xzi]

I still say drive someone underground (especially in such a poor way as borderline word filter*) and you give them mystique and such. Allow them to spew utter bollocks, and just as importantly others to counter it, and they get laughed at.

The end result is the same and the person is driven underground either way, but I wouldn't say that posting on 4Chan/Gab lends any extra prestige or mystique to a person's words.

 

[petethepug]

The United States Constitution is the outline of what our government is based on and guarantees us the right to free speech and also allows for the freedom to react to free speech. Hate speech is anything that discriminates against another individual based on various factors that have changed throughout time. Currently hate speech encompasses speaking badly about people based on their race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Why is it currently deemed acceptable to discriminate against people who participate in hate speech? The people who are discriminating against others based on what they say are acting no better than the generations they have come to despise. It’s okay for them to financially ruin, publicly humiliate, mistreat, slander and generally destroy other peoples lives – something they claim they or others of hate speech are victims of.

What if in ten years the category of “political preference” suddenly becomes part of hate speech? What if in ten years you lose a job because of your comments about the current Government administration? How would you feel? It’s hypocritical to act in some of the same way that your say your “so-called” oppressors have.

Can people not see that their actions are which parallel those who participate in hate speech are no better or even worse? Are not we supposed to learn from the past and not repeat the same mistakes? It’s okay to label people by race (Government forms ask for your race, Doctors base your treatment on race, Political Parties pander to certain races – is this not racist?!?), but God forbid you simply do so in a manner that is not acceptable by a certain group of people.

If we are to learn from the past we must realize that if our actions are going to reflect those of the past that nothing is going to “change”. The fact is that there will always be a definition of what is considered “bad” and that you cannot control people to conform to what you consider to be “the right way” and ruining peoples lives because they do not agree with you or act the same way you do is only repeating history.

People claim to care about others, but this is only based on others who act in a way they deem to be collectively appropriate. Shouldn’t we treat people with respect due to the fact they are “human” - which is what we as a society claim to be doing. Examples of such are universal health care, counseling for prisoners, mental health treatment services, assistance with food and support for immigrants. In theory this is great, but limiting these services to those who you only deem fit to receive them (based on how they act or what they say) is defeating the purpose. Is it okay to deny these services to people because they simply said something you do not agree with?

So I ask you; how you do defend yourselves? How is ruining other peoples lives based solely on what they say a good way to go about doing things?

This is actually true. And i'm in for your support (that's the bare summary of what I agree with you with, is your thread title.
As far as the discussion. What I can best conclude is that love is reaching its peaking point with family bonding.

I wouldn't take this as a word of warning (yet.)

 

[notimp]

isn't it pretty much logically proven that tolerance for intolerance leads to the destruction of tolerance?

You can destroy democracy with democratic means, yes. Thats a design flaw. Or not. Depending on who you ask.

The goal is to have enough people "immunized" (flipside is indoctrinated.. ) against a populist draw, of blaming everything on them mexicans (and bad trade deals, I believe), so that a "takeover" by a highly different ideology ("boo, them are journalists, boooo" "I know, lets all read breitbart!") doesnt happen.

Didn't quite work in america. But those where glorious pictures, of your next leader on escalators, I have to say. And those Les Moonves quotes about them Donald stories being so good for business... Damn, those were good jokes.

It happened in european countries as well. Even more so, because there in one case they've gotten the numbers to even restructure the legislative system. (Think constitutional courts.) They basically voted out liberal democracy.

But to return to the initial comment. In debates you have several ways to solve this. You can solve it by distributing time for a speech equally between proponents, or you can solve it by having a moderated debate, or by adhering to standards, that the debaters voluntary agree upon.

You cant fix this on social media though. Its impossible. Its the "everyones opinion needs to be able to be heard" nature of the format, that doesnt allow for it. Its the "optimising for what peaks peoples interests" business models that make sure, that the bullsh't gets the highest traction. Its the (economically driven) insistence, of "we just a platform - we no responsible", that makes sure - that at best you are ending up with automated censorship in the future - and then all think, that thats a good thing - while still staying in bubbles.

Its the insistence, that "fact checking" will safe you, when the most prominent fact checking agencies themselves already have gone public saying - we dont even make a dent, we were just used as crisis PR.

You have people not exchanging opinions anymore - if they are not basically identical - how do you think thats going to work out longterm? You even have the media landscape to support it. (Individualized news networks.. Even fringe. No american knows the highest regarded 10 newspapers in his country anymore. They dont even know the source of what lands in their newsfeeds.)

Its like people all being very confused how you can solve this - when the answer really is, you have to care about sources, and means of distribution.

If you dont. And if you trust an ad agency to supply you with your important news stories - its over.

You can even end up consuming the far right outlets for a while if you must - over time you might notice, that they follow a certain profile - same with outlets on the left. The great thing about this internet thing? You can read them all - and in the end you'll end up somewhat informed.

Thats part of the solution.

The other part of it is having political parties, that have somewhat of a profile again. And by that I dont mean we hate mexicans, and are for making america great again - because thats just you being nigerian email scammed again.. (Please dont go for populist speeches. If you ask someone what they plan on doing, and they tell you "we will build a wall to keep the bad people out" - run.)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

And what country in Europe is responsible for most of the censorship we saw in games?

Please dont equate that with censorship of speech.

The guys censoring games in europe simply are old conservatives that think that they youth has to be protected from them bad influences - of "whatever is new at the time". This has almost no political dimension to it at all.

Also the games are art argument, currently is so weak, that I'd not even let that count anymore. Games, nowadays are inherently commercial products not political ones. Censoring them is - meh, something you do so moms around the world dont insist on buying you wooden toys anymore. The publishers even do it voluntarily to get into certain markets. They dont care.

GTA V - which might be the most political game of the recent past, got its point across - even censored.. Didnt even need gore for that.

Also to answer your question, thats the individual countries themselves. If they havent gone for the ESRB rating, which is an industry selfcontrol proposal.

 

[FAST6191]

Please dont equate that with censorship of speech.

The guys censoring games in europe simply are old conservatives that think that they youth has to be protected from them bad influences - of "whatever is new at the time". This has almost no political dimension to it.

Also the games are art argument, currently is so weak, that I'd not even let that count anymore. Games, nowadays are inherently commercial products not political ones. Censoring them is - meh, something you do so moms around the world dont insist on buying you wooden toys anymore. The publishers even do it voluntarily to get into certain markets. They dont care.

GTA V - which might be the most political game of the recent past, got its point across - even censored.. Didnt even need gore for that.

So a government imposes restrictions upon an artistic medium under the grounds that its contents are too dangerous for the minds of.. someone, this despite any amount of evidence you like to the contrary (and seemingly none sought). Speech need not be political to be free. I also can't get to just because not all stuff is political that none of it is.

I don't doubt it was some combo of religious weirdos and special interest groups that missed the boat that provided the biggest onus, however nobody took it on with arguments for speech and there was no wide scale defiance enough to make it change.

Similarly I am not sure what pubs trying to play the game to get into a market really means here. I should probably also point at Sony vs the a bunch of their Japanese devs this last few weeks. Plenty are upset about that.

 

[notimp]

I've been on the other side of that argument before.

Its not the same. I'd live with all my games being censored for the next 100 years, if that means, that open political debates could take place on public stages again.

Heck, if blood is green instead of red, in lets say Fortnite, maybe someone doesnt like that so much, that they stop using games as escapism for a while - that would be something.

With Kojima being sacked by Konami, all publishers going for "virtual entertainment experiences" (play game for 200 hours, buy microtransactions, dlc, and season pass), only sequels ever getting greenlit - and projects being created by 300+ people without a unified vision. Games have seized being art. Now indies are supposed to always compensate.

The Witcher 3 maybe was the last game that deeply impressed me, and where I'd argue for it being more then just pop art (which is a commercial substitute.. ). And if a head rolled or not - didn't matter in that game all that much.

I'd still prefer to see the "creators intent" (/300), but I'm not opening the same amount of hellraising righteousness I'd do for peoples believes and political opinions not being censored.

Because one changes societies, and one does not. (The chilling effect stuff.)

My believe that art can change the tracks of societies is about as close to zero as possible, compared to how I felt about it in previous years - so that doesnt help much either.. (Thats personal opinion, not some truth I'm flogging.. )

 

[FAST6191]

I've been on the other side of that argument before.

Its not the same. I'd live with all my games being censored for the next 100 years, if that means, that open political debates could take place on public stages again.

Heck, if blood is green instead of red, in lets say Fortnite, maybe someone doesnt like that so much, that they stop using games as escapism for a while - that would be something.

With Kojima being sacked by Konami, all publishers going for "virtual entertainment experiences" (play game for 200 hours, buy microtransactions, dlc, and season pass), only sequels ever getting greenlit - and projects being created by 300+ people without a unified vision. Games have seized being art. Now indies are supposed to always compensate.

The Witcher 3 maybe was the last game that deeply impressed me, and where I'd argue for it being more then just pop art (which is a commercial substitute.. ). And if a head rolled or not - didn't matter in that game all that much.

I'd still prefer to see the "creators intent" (/300), but I'm not opening the same amount of hellraising righteousness I'd do for peoples believes and political opinions not being censored.

Because one changes societies, and one does not. (The chilling effect stuff.)

My believe that art can change the tracks of societies is about as close to zero as possible, compared to how I felt about it in previous years - so that doesnt help much either.. (Thats personal opinion, not some truth I'm flogging.. )

While one would be a lesser trauma to the world at large if you are going to stand up for your principles... stand tall or don't stand at all is where I am going, and beyond that "give them a tiny bit of power and they will only come back for more". It is quite literally the same underlying reasoning as the "while I would be delighted for the racist cunts of the world to actually take a look at how it all works, see it is not so and go from that there is no way I would trust a governing body to ban the words of that"

So the big pubs have abandoned all pretence of artistry. Never mind that such a thing could well be a transient state games can be made by anybody, pretty much always have been and now distribution is even easier than that.

From a functional perspective I don't disagree that much of what we have seen does not impact things as it stands today*, however I want the option to see what might happen if given the chance. Most silent film does not have the power to move me but to assume it was always going to be that... (the first film was 1888, the first sound film/talkie was 1927 if we go with feature films, a bit less time than today back to pong but not by much, in fact we would just be getting Asteroids).

*on the matter of green and red blood I will always remember the talk I saw from an advert maker that relayed the call they got from a young girl saying her period was not blue. Similarly I am still not sure that no blood is the better way to go -- if you aim to discourage violence a bit of realism tends to do wonders there (how many times have you seen some youngster on the stand saying "I only hit him with a glass" and thought the one struck would just get up or just stagger a bit?).

 

[supersonicwaffle]

So a government imposes restrictions upon an artistic medium under the grounds that its contents are too dangerous for the minds of.. someone, this despite any amount of evidence you like to the contrary (and seemingly none sought). Speech need not be political to be free. I also can't get to just because not all stuff is political that none of it is.

I take it you're still talking about Germany? What you describe isn't the case here. There's not really any government restrictions on entaintainment other than using Nazi imagery (which itself is in the proccess of being overturned rn).
There's two peculiarities regarding the German rating system:

1. There's a government agency that examines media to protect youth, if it deems it dangerous to youth it will be put on an index, which doesn't mean it's banned but that it can't be advertised or be displayed in store shelves (other things that have advertising restrictions include tabacco for example). It can still be bought "over the counter", if that makes sense, by people over 18. We have a store in our home town that sold imported, uncut versions of games and it's perfectly legal to do so.
2. There's a self rating board and most games that are heavily censored are that way because the publisher targeted younger audiences. For example: Quake 4's original version was put on the index but the censored version for the German market was rated 16+ by the self rating board. They could've targeted 18+ and put more gore in it.
   • Fun Fact: Germany had a strong LAN culture during the 2000s where you had LANs run by various local clubs almost every week in a region. People going to LANs were happy if a multiplayer focused game, like Quake 4, got a 16+ version because it meant a 16+ LAN would be able to run tournaments for it.

Going back to what has been mentioned earlier about restrictions to free speech here in Germany regarding Nazi imagery or Holocaust denial. The government agency responsible for putting media on an index has recently decided not to put the uncut version of Wolfenstein 2 on the index, even though Nazi imagery in the game is purely for entertainment and not for educational purposes. The self rating board is currently in the proccess of deciding whether it wants to allow the uncut version on the German market. There's also games like Doom that have been taken off the index in recent years. It seems like the agency is loosening up it's definition of what is dangerous to youth.

TL;DR
Games publishers/developers won't be denied access to the German market for their uncencored version. Restrictions that are comparable to other things dangerous to youth (alcohol, tabacco) will be in place. The decision to compromise their art by censoring is purely their own.

 

[FAST6191]

I take it you're still talking about Germany? What you describe isn't the case here. There's not really any government restrictions on entaintainment other than using Nazi imagery (which itself is in the proccess of being overturned rn).
There's two peculiarities regarding the German rating system:

1. There's a government agency that examines media to protect youth, if it deems it dangerous to youth it will be put on an index, which doesn't mean it's banned but that it can't be advertised or be displayed in store shelves (other things that have advertising restrictions include tabacco for example). It can still be bought "over the counter", if that makes sense, by people over 18. We have a store in our home town that sold imported, uncut versions of games and it's perfectly legal to do so.
2. There's a self rating board and most games that are heavily censored are that way because the publisher targeted younger audiences. For example: Quake 4's original version was put on the index but the censored version for the German market was rated 16+ by the self rating board. They could've targeted 18+ and put more gore in it.
   • Fun Fact: Germany had a strong LAN culture during the 2000s where you had LANs run by various local clubs almost every week in a region. People going to LANs were happy if a multiplayer focused game, like Quake 4, got a 16+ version because it meant a 16+ LAN would be able to run tournaments for it.

Going back to what has been mentioned earlier about restrictions to free speech here in Germany regarding Nazi imagery or Holocaust denial. The government agency responsible for putting media on an index has recently decided not to put the uncut version of Wolfenstein 2 on the index, even though Nazi imagery in the game is purely for entertainment and not for educational purposes. The self rating board is currently in the proccess of deciding whether it wants to allow the uncut version on the German market. There's also games like Doom that have been taken off the index in recent years. It seems like the agency is loosening up it's definition of what is dangerous to youth.

TL;DR
Games publishers/developers won't be denied access to the German market for their uncencored version. Restrictions that are comparable to other things dangerous to youth (alcohol, tabacco) will be in place. The decision to compromise their art by censoring is purely their own.

Going by previous discussions it seems the self censor board was set up in reaction to a piece of government legislation and is official recognised, and appears to also then legally prohibit advertising and I think it was display of such games... not really a voluntary thing then.
From http://www.usk.de/en/

It is the officially recognized institution responsible for the classification of computer and video games in Germany in accordance with the Children and Young Persons Protection Act (JuSchG) as well as for online contents in accordance with the Youth Media Protection State Agreement (JMStV)

The Nazi thing. I can see why it was done at first but I reckon it massively overstayed its welcome (and initial projections of how long it would remain in effect if various things from around the time it was all enacted are to be believed), probably such that it should have definitely have been gone by the 1980s and thus not really bothered games.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

Going by previous discussions it seems the self censor board was set up in reaction to a piece of government legislation and is official recognised, and appears to also then legally prohibit advertising and I think it was display of such games... not really a voluntary thing then.
From http://www.usk.de/en/

Yes it is officially recognized and USK must rate in accordance to JuSchG (Jugendschutzgesetzt translated as Young Persons Protection Act, more literal translation would be Youth Protection Act), I don't see where the problem is with that.
I'd be interested where you get the idea that unrated games are prohibited from advertising and display. I can't find any information on it. This is a bit complicated because of a different institution BPjM so let me try to explain.

• Some time Ago (like 15 years or so) BPjS (Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Schriften, Federal Department for Writings Harmful to Young Persons) had to examine any media that a citizen request to be examined for content harmful to youth.
  • This lead to some games, like Unreal Tournament, being examined years after release and put on the index
• BPjS was then reformed and renamed BPjM (Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien, Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons), now they have to examine every game that gets a release in Germany, Publishers can either turn it in ahead of release or just release it.
  • There's been games in the past that have been available for a few days or a week in its uncut version. Stores would often put it on display as soon as they got it instead of waiting for official release day. The copy of Quake 4 in the uncut version that I have, was bought 2 days ahead of release in a regular electronics store.
• Putting stuff on the index is beyond just an 18+ rating, porn would be something that's 18+ but not on the index.
• Any restrictions regarding advertisement or display in stores only apply to media on the index!
• USK will put an age rating on the game which IS voluntary, if a publisher won't have a game rated it can still be sold (albeit only to persons over 18) and it can be advertised and displayed. It can, however, be put on the index by BPjM after the fact and the restrictions would apply.
  • Maybe you misunderstood things when researching because on the USK website's FAQ for publishers they combine the aswer to whether things can be sold without a rating with a warning about restrictions to games on the index.
• USK is not allowed to rate a game that they believe should be on the index and instead have turn it over to BPjM

I believe this is a fair process. Over here we have moved to make other things harmful to young persons less accessible. You have to verify your age at cigarette machines with your ID, driver's license or bank card, whenever a cashier at a store drags a product over the scanner that's 16+ it will signal a beep and the cashier has to physically press a button to confirm the person they're selling to is of age.

I would agree that BPjM/BPjS was too harsh when it came to putting stuff on the index but they've recently removed games like DOOM and DOOM2 from the index and in general seem to loosen up. They recently decided that the uncut version of Wolfenstein 2 will not be put on the index.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

Regarding hatespeech and specifically tolerance of intolerance I would believe that people don't who are calling for that don't really think it through.

Up until now a system of free speech with as little restrictions as possible has created the best outcome. On principle I would agree that intelorance should not be tolerated, the question really is how to go about it and I don't think violence is the answer. Let's face it you will always have fringe whacko minority groups that believe in some outlandish stuff.

I think there's a point at which trying to regulate would do more harm than good because it's virtually impossible to draw a line and evenly apply it to all people. I think it's a worthwhile experiment to think about how you would enforce such rules in specific situations.

• In a channel 4 survey 52% of british muslims disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Great Britian
• @Xzi what would be the appropiate response? Should I be intelorant towards muslims for their intolerance toward gays? Would that make me an intolerable intolerant?

I grew up in a mutlicultural soceity and I'm grateful for it. My parents fled socialism before me and my brother were born and I'm deeply grateful for that. At school, the majority of the classroom was of non German descent and I learned a lot from different cultures and it was great. However, towards the end of my time in high school I also experienced how my Jewish neighbour's kid was treated by my Muslim friends after transferring to my school. I was a young adult and I was just so confused, I didn't know what was going on.

 

[FAST6191]

Yes it is officially recognized and USK must rate in accordance to JuSchG (Jugendschutzgesetzt translated as Young Persons Protection Act, more literal translation would be Youth Protection Act), I don't see where the problem is with that.
I'd be interested where you get the idea that unrated games are prohibited from advertising and display. I can't find any information on it. This is a bit complicated because of a different institution BPjM so let me try to explain.

• Some time Ago (like 15 years or so) BPjS (Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Schriften, Federal Department for Writings Harmful to Young Persons) had to examine any media that a citizen request to be examined for content harmful to youth.
  • This lead to some games, like Unreal Tournament, being examined years after release and put on the index
• BPjS was then reformed and renamed BPjM (Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien, Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons), now they have to examine every game that gets a release in Germany, Publishers can either turn it in ahead of release or just release it.
  • There's been games in the past that have been available for a few days or a week in its uncut version. Stores would often put it on display as soon as they got it instead of waiting for official release day. The copy of Quake 4 in the uncut version that I have, was bought 2 days ahead of release in a regular electronics store.
• Putting stuff on the index is beyond just an 18+ rating, porn would be something that's 18+ but not on the index.
• Any restrictions regarding advertisement or display in stores only apply to media on the index!
• USK will put an age rating on the game which IS voluntary, if a publisher won't have a game rated it can still be sold (albeit only to persons over 18) and it can be advertised and displayed. It can, however, be put on the index by BPjM after the fact and the restrictions would apply.
  • Maybe you misunderstood things when researching because on the USK website's FAQ for publishers they combine the aswer to whether things can be sold without a rating with a warning about restrictions to games on the index.
• USK is not allowed to rate a game that they believe should be on the index and instead have turn it over to BPjM

I believe this is a fair process. Over here we have moved to make other things harmful to young persons less accessible. You have to verify your age at cigarette machines with your ID, driver's license or bank card, whenever a cashier at a store drags a product over the scanner that's 16+ it will signal a beep and the cashier has to physically press a button to confirm the person they're selling to is of age.

I would agree that BPjM/BPjS was too harsh when it came to putting stuff on the index but they've recently removed games like DOOM and DOOM2 from the index and in general seem to loosen up. They recently decided that the uncut version of Wolfenstein 2 will not be put on the index.

As far as advertising and such goes I might be misremembering specifics but it came up in a discussion of Gal Gun 2 earlier this year. https://gbatemp.net/threads/gal-gun-2-denied-classification-in-germany.496384/ . Though that might be more denied classification than not bothering or getting a high one. Either way I still see a piece of legislation and a board, officially recognised at that, that is set to enact it, or multiple versions thereof if indeed it is two bits of legislation and two boards.

Second question though "harmful to young persons". What is that and how does that work as it pertains to media (comparing it to fags and alcohol is a bit of a stretch)? How would you explain the massive disparities between countries -- if there was some biological, psychological or sociological basis I would not expect much in the way of differences across Europe? Going further as you say most of this is tissue thin as far as proper proper enforcement and in some ways availability -- between older siblings, fake IDs, parents that don't care, shops that don't care, being able to download games since decades ago (and whatever the local equivalent of computer fayres was before that) and friends with access to all of this everybody seems to still be OK, nothing burning in the streets with sky high whatever rates of something nasty.

Anyway the original point I was aiming to make was it was said that Germany, save for the Nazi stuff (a thing of dubious merit from where I sit), has fairly robust protections of speech. I saw its approach to games and found that in stark contrast to that supposition.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

As far as advertising and such goes I might be misremembering specifics but it came up in a discussion of Gal Gun 2 earlier this year. https://gbatemp.net/threads/gal-gun-2-denied-classification-in-germany.496384/ . Though that might be more denied classification than not bothering or getting a high one.

Thanks for linking the article, unfortunately it contains a lot of misinformation. Denial of classification by the USK would most likely lead to it being put on the index by BPjM which doesn't mean it would prevent a retail release it would only mean it can't be advertised or displayed in stores and that's that. Saying they would deny it to exist is ludicrous. I would say publishers don't want to go through the hassle of setting up distribution channels for a product they aren't allowed to advertise.

Either way I still see a piece of legislation and a board, officially recognised at that, that is set to enact it, or multiple versions thereof if indeed it is two bits of legislation and two boards.

It kinda is yes, it even has government representation on but again, I don't see the problem with that and it doesn't mean it's not voluntary. Media that would not be turned in by publishers to be rated / classified will not be denied access to the market, however, it will only be able to be sold to adults as a precaution.
As I've said before there's a second federal institution that places certain media on an index which is what restricts advertisement and display and doesn't even deny access to the market.

Second question though "harmful to young persons". What is that and how does that work as it pertains to media (comparing it to fags and alcohol is a bit of a stretch)? How would you explain the massive disparities between countries -- if there was some biological, psychological or sociological basis I would not expect much in the way of differences across Europe?

Harmful to young persons is a pretty broad legal term over here which is supposed to literally contain everything that's harmful to underage persons including alcohol, cigarettes, glorification of violence (legal term), or porn. This is specific to the German market and I don't know why you would bring Europe into this. As for science, the video games industry and particularly its ability to create games that contain graphic violence is still very young. You wouldn't have expected scientists to have researched its effect on the development of young persons well enough by the time Wolfenstein, DOOM or Mortal Kombat was released.
My Opinion is that clamping down on this as a precaution rather than just allowing free access is favorable. I'd rather have it this way than have childs smoking which was literally the case to the point there were brands specifically targeting children here. Again, it seems to loosen up now that things are better understood.

Going further as you say most of this is tissue thin as far as proper proper enforcement and in some ways availability -- between older siblings, fake IDs, parents that don't care, shops that don't care, being able to download games since decades ago (and whatever the local equivalent of computer fayres was before that) and friends with access to all of this everybody seems to still be OK, nothing burning in the streets with sky high whatever rates of something nasty.

Making things "harmful to young persons" accessible to them is illegal, literally every possibility you listed for an underage person to gain possession requires a person of age to commit a crime. Let my give you an even more extreme example which I learned as an IT professional

• As an employer, if you employ underage persons, you are liable if they are able to access media harmful to young persons because you are obligated to care for them, essentially giving you comparable duties to a teacher or kindergarten teacher. This means every business that employs underage persons is required by law to block sites with stuff like gore or porn.

I agree that the system falls short when it comes to online distribution, technically it falls under broadcast regulations which I haven't looked into how that works with games specifically. This is because laws usually mention media (text, audio, video, games, everything) and not games in particular.

Anyway the original point I was aiming to make was it was said that Germany, save for the Nazi stuff (a thing of dubious merit from where I sit), has fairly robust protections of speech. I saw its approach to games and found that in stark contrast to that supposition.

If I'm not mistaken the law doesn't even mention Nazi imagery but it's often conflated. Technically it's symbols representing organizations that are a threat to the German constituion i.e. any terror organization, nazi imagery, etc.
For an organization to be deemed a threat to the constitution is a very lengthy and difficult proccess. There's been two proccesses to ban what's essentially a Nazi party (and I don't use that term lightly) and both failed to do so.

The only thing that really sticks out to me that has to do with Nazis specifially is that holocaust denial over here is illegal, which considering our constitution was established in 1949 I'm fine with.

I would agree that we have pretty robust protections of speech.