Hate Speech

[FAST6191]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

If you prevent advertising and display that is tantamount to denying things from where I sit. "I only beat them into a coma, did not kill them".

If it works for you then so be it -- your risk tolerances and things you will accept may well be different and that will probably be where any interesting conversations end up. Again though it was more that Germany was put forth as some kind of model example of the government not getting in the way of speech (with the proviso) and that sat in stark contrast to that. By some technicality it might not be a law but it is a de facto law, one put forth and enforced by the state, and at that point you are splitting hairs.
I would probably agree the rest of it pretty good (for now at least, some of the stuff I saw proposed for various social media type setups was a bit scary. I am also not a fan of some of the religious stuff, Section 166 if a search is accurate, but different discussion there), however the games thing I am not inclined to let slip by, especially as it has had knock on effects for the rest of Europe.
I would also say no group voluntarily organises a setup like that and grants it any power (while some might choose to follow your recommendations you get taken out by people willing to provide more cool things to see, see also how Sony and Sega variously took down Nintendo from their once lofty position). Such things are almost inevitably the result of some politicos rattling a sabre.

Computer games and research at the point of enacting the laws. Maybe not. However we had panics over radio, film, TV, comics and such before then (not sure about the German specifics of each of those as much as those in the English speaking world but I am not expecting anything radically different, and what little I do know here is pretty similar). Just in case "but they are different and so much more realistic"... guess what you can find almost word for word for those other (older) mediums in that list? Maybe it really is the case this time.

"to commit a crime"
Ignoring my misgivings on whether it should be a crime, or something even close to it (especially not the siblings, parents and such stuff), that was not where I was heading there.
I was saying that regardless of the laws it is available to anybody that made even the slightest effort (bypassing restrictions when we were kids being an ever popular topic), and everything is still just fine and no regression studies or anything say your local psychos would have been fine without access to games or whatever, or that there are more of them than there would be without access.
This is also skipping over how silly I find it to conflate media with fags and alcohol (both addictive chemicals with negative effects) -- I would be willing to listen to an argument but the harm profiles are so very different that to compare them that way is silly. If the government finds it expedient to group such things under one working group and body of law then so be it (I can well see it avoiding duplication of services and related problems with having parallel systems), however to read anything more into it than that would be illogical from where I sit.

I was bringing Europe in for if there was some basis in said sciences for such things they would all broadly align*, but they don't. If there is something other than science/evidence based reasoning involved I tend to perk up and question it and as these differences exist it stinks of puritanical busybodies and I dislike such things. Why a kid in Cologne should be subject to different things to a kid in Brussels (same latitude, same weather give or take a couple of days, both in technologically advanced countries, similar styles of education, both countries have a fairly shared history... dress them the same and get them to shut their mouths and you will have a hard time telling them apart is what I am saying, and you can repeat that trick for most of Europe) if there was a demonstrable basis for it all rather than people stabbing in the dark. If you can't show reason for your decisions then get out of my laws. Do your own thing if you want but laws I am supposed to follow as well.. No thanks.

*go anywhere in the world and car crash deaths taper off for males at about 25, many military doctrines and insurance company estimates reflect this as well. Psychology also notes a drop off of risk taking behaviours around then as well. You can base things on stuff like that.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

If you prevent advertising and display that is tantamount to denying things from where I sit. "I only beat them into a coma, did not kill them".

I agree that it's denying "things", it's just not denying "existence" or "access to the market" as was stated.

By some technicality it might not be a law but it is a de facto law, one put forth and enforced by the state, and at that point you are splitting hairs.

I don't know, maybe there's a misunderstanding. It is law, we agree on that, I'm just saying I don't have a problem with it and that an artist wouldn't have to compromise their art because of it, because market access or existence won't be denied.
Considering that selling anything to minors is a gray area in Germany as people under 18 are considered incapable of agreeing to a contract by law, the only thing it really does is open up a way to sell within that gray area. Not getting a rating doesn't necessarily mean it gets indexed by the BPjM which is when restrictions would apply, it would only mean you can only sell to people over 18. (BTW this really means that if a minor buys something and the parents don't agree with it, the store has to take it back as a purchase is a contractual agreement)

• Let's say a Mario game would never be put on the index and Nintendo decides not to submit the next installment to USK for a rating. It would only mean it can only be sold to people over 18.

If it works for you then so be it -- your risk tolerances and things you will accept may well be different and that will probably be where any interesting conversations end up.

This is also skipping over how silly I find it to conflate media with fags and alcohol (both addictive chemicals with negative effects) -- I would be willing to listen to an argument but the harm profiles are so very different that to compare them that way is silly.

I agree that this is where the interesting discussion would likely be and I believe this is likely where we disagree. I like to draw from experience so here's an anecdote.

• One of my partners is a UTM-Firewall (universal threat management) manufacturer. They have a department that does nothing but categorize websites based on their content. Categories include gore and porn. I've been talking to these people and all of them need couseling to manage what they look at for their job.

So, from what people who have extensive experience with the media in question tell me, it seems to have a harmful effect. I would say you could compare them to drugs in a broader sense for the sake of discussion, specifically regarding accessibility by minors.

Would I say that games have this kind of effect? No. Would I say that at the time (early 90s) an educated guess that games have no harmful effect would be reasonable? No.
A type of media where the consumer has agency in violent acts in such a manner to reach a goal has been pretty new and I think it's fine to err on the side of caution with regards to minors. It's also worthwhile to consider the perception of the portrayal of violence at the time. I read a piece that said at the time it was realeased the violence in "A Clockwork Orange" was perceived as very realistic whereas today it is perceived as heavily stylized, meaning DOOM was perceived completely differently when it was first released 25 years ago.

If the government finds it expedient to group such things under one working group and body of law then so be it

To clear things up, the "Young Person Protection Act" which is a pretty decently sized book, is what deals with things "Harmful to Young Persons". To my knowledge, it doesn't really compare tabacco or alcohol to media. I made this comparison because I think it's a worthwhile comparison when talking about accessibility in the market.

I was bringing Europe in for if there was some basis in said sciences for such things they would all broadly align*, but they don't. If there is something other than science/evidence based reasoning involved I tend to perk up and question it and as these differences exist it stinks of puritanical busybodies and I dislike such things.

We're on the same page here but you have to account for developments where the science (for example long-term studies) just isn't ready yet. The favorable scenario would be where an educated guess and precaution has to make way for laws founded in scientific evidence.

With regards to ratings in Europe, there's PEGI whose labels are mandated to be on games by law in several countries indluding Austria, Finland, Ireland, Iceland, Irsreal, the Netherlands or UK. Germany has decided against implementing PEGI because at the time it came around the USK has already been established for almost a decade.


I think we can agree that government regulation should be as minimal as possible and that the proccess of adjusting law to scientific evidence is probably too slow. I guess we have different levels of risk aversion when it comes to potentially harmful things when all that can be known is an educated guess.



EDIT:
I'd also like to add that the internet and my lack of TV watching may have skewed my perception of how big of a deal restrictions on advertisement are and that I might have subconciously changed my mind about it. Back then the information about games would mostly be obtained by reading magazines in the good old time when it was a trade press and before writers had their manic episode about suddenly becoming journalists. Even then, writers found their way around restictions, referring to games on the index, such as Quake, as "Beben" (the literal german translation for the word quake). With access to international gaming news and self publishing services like twitter, facebook or youtube, these days it's even less of a problem.

 

[FAST6191]

Games that don't get advertised don't get purchased -- for all else we have probably both seen game companies not part with a single cent if they are not getting something back. If you are not allowed to advertise by law then...

I shall have to look into the human classifier thing. I saw the one for facebook the other month ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawo...acebook-after-experiencing-ptsd/#4e4aa00841c8 ) but it was considered something of an isolated incident, I have spoken to a few people doing emergency calls and some vaguely similar happens. That said constant unwavering exposure else you don't eat would be a different thing. Constant exposure, much less to purportedly real stuff, does seem to be a common factor with most things (it is not the first explosion that gets you, but it happening for days on end for months at a time).
On the flip side and for long term studies. It has been 26 years since wolfenstein 3d (or 25 since Doom). Reasonable then that a few which played it underage, something not likely to be a small number, is a grandparent at this point (apparently Germany skews somewhat high here at 29.4 if https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html is to be believed but is hardly a scandalous timeframe). We are all still standing and living in the most peaceful time in human history. While I still await the long term studies and discussion thereof I will take the continued good existence of the world, and general lack of anecdotal accounts here (do we have any serial bad guys that say it was the games that did it?). Alternatively this is the sort of thing regression studies are made for -- if said groups managed to keep games out of the hands of kids in a country/area then there will be lots of groups where they did not.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

Games that don't get advertised don't get purchased -- for all else game. If you are not allowed to advertise by law then...

I shall have to look into the human classifier thing. I saw the one for facebook the other month ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawo...acebook-after-experiencing-ptsd/#4e4aa00841c8 ) but it was considered something of an isolated incident, I have spoken to a few people doing emergency calls and some vaguely similar happens. That said constant unwavering exposure else you don't eat would be a different thing. Constant exposure, much less to purportedly real stuff, does seem to be a common factor with most things (it is not the first explosion that gets you, but it happening for days on end for months at a time).
On the flip side and for long term studies. It has been 26 years since wolfenstein 3d (or 25 since Doom). Reasonable then that a few which played it underage, something not likely to be a small number, is a grandparent at this point (apparently Germany skews somewhat high here at 29.4 if https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html is to be believed but is hardly a scandalous timeframe). We are all still standing and living in the most peaceful time in human history. While I still await the long term studies and discussion thereof I will take the continued good existence of the world, and general lack of anecdotal accounts here (do we have any serial bad guys that say it was the games that did it?). Alternatively this is the sort of thing regression studies are made for -- if said groups managed to keep games out of the hands of kids in a country/area then there will be lots of groups where they did not.

I pretty much agree to all you've said.

Regarding advertising. If you know a game is likely to be put on the index you make the most of advertising leading up to release (if a game is not submitted beforehand it will be examined after release). Games media will also still write about your game. I agree that it's not a perfect situation but I think it's a decent compromise.

Regarding the long time since release of DOOM or Wolfenstein, I already mentioned that I would say lawmakers are slow to adjust and that's regrettable. However, I also mentioned that things are loosening up, it's only a handful of games per year these restictions apply to (2017 it was 4 according to this list: https://www.schnittberichte.com/svds.php?Page=Indizierungen&Kat=Games#indizierung-game-ablehnung , not counting rereleases)
What I haven't mentioned yet is that every piece of media will be reevaluated after 25 years, DOOM has already been taken off the index, I expect more to follow as we go on.

 

[Flame]

if ive ever seem too long didnt read definition.... this thread is it.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

The original post and this post are both "hate speech". Cuz you know, I hate it when someone gives a hate speech on hate speech.

 

[Glyptofane]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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

You don't find it odd at all that you are forced to believe in something or go to prison for saying otherwise?

 

[supersonicwaffle]

You don't find it odd at all that you are forced to believe in something or go to prison for saying otherwise?

Oh it’s odd for sure. What I was saying was that I understand it was a concern at the time (1949) for good reasons.

What’s more irritating is that it’s sort of a taboo to talk about this. This year a Journalist went after an owner of an online TV station, going as far as reporting him to the police for holocaust denial because they talked about how weird it was it’s illegal to deny the holocaust with two guests on air. This is not a right leaning station btw and they mentioned how absurd it is to deny the Holocaust as well.

 

[PanTheFaun]

Oh it’s odd for sure. What I was saying was that I understand it was a concern at the time (1949) for good reasons.

What’s more irritating is that it’s sort of a taboo to talk about this. This year a Journalist went after an owner of an online TV station, going as far as reporting him to the police for holocaust denial because they talked about how weird it was it’s illegal to deny the holocaust with two guests on air. This is not a right leaning station btw and they mentioned how absurd it is to deny the Holocaust as well.

"To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?"

 

[supersonicwaffle]

"To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?"

Nah, the case against the TV station owner was dismissed within a couple of days. This doesn't really apply.