Kiwis ban virtual drugs

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: Kiwis ban virtual drugs
spy-there Agent Member # 1993	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 09:56 Profile #0 Recently I found an article about a game that is banned now in New Zealand. It's a strategy game where you play a drug dealer and fight cops (didn't play it). Thus it might be only a matter of time until the DEA starts also in the US to ban games that include drugs. Fortunately skribbane is not on their list yet . Though it could be a splendid publicity for A3 if DEA would ban it for illicit fantasy ^_^ -------------------- ^ö^ I was a cannibal for twenty-five years. For the rest I have been a vegetarian. George Bernard Shaw Posts: 1420 \| Registered: Wednesday, October 2 2002 07:00
Jumpin Salmon ? Man, ? Amazing Member # 5755	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 10:12 Profile #1 I guess I see the main issue as one of morals. If you substitute slave for drug, then most people would be horrified and wouldn't play the game. The US has an interesting culture in that non-productive activites receive higher praise and more press than productive ones. The Kiwi gov't obviously doesn't like the spillover, so have acted in this way. It is a small message to the economic engine that world view of US morals is not always a positive one. I guess each of us needs to answer the "what is okay for me" question to assess the value of these moral-bending games, and that hopefully solves the perceived problem. The article wasn't specific enough, or I read too quickly, and I am unsure if actual crimes were committed as an extension of the game. That would interest me. this message sponsored by the segno Posts: 4114 \| Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Drew By Committee Member # 4233	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 10:49 Profile #2 The DEA doesn't have that jurisdiction, and any effort to ban games on such a basis would be rightfully attacked as infringing 1st Amendment rights. I can't access the article, but frankly, it seems like the first step down a slippery slope of censorship. Posts: 2242 \| Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 13:10 Profile #3 The Commonwealth in general has a very weak and narrow concept of free speech; it is not at all uncommon in countries like Australia and New Zealand to ban or limit by law some manner of expression, speech, assembly, etc. on the basis of it being generally offensive or posing a social harm. The unfortunate thing is that this seems to be the accepted state of affairs there, and the number of people who would consider US-style freedoms either desirable or acceptable are minimal. [ Wednesday, November 02, 2005 13:11: Message edited by: Belisarius ] Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Ash Lael E Equals MC What!!!! Member # 5491	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 13:29 Profile Homepage #4 Belisarius is fairly correct, though the assumption that the US way is the best way is a tad irritating. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 \| Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 13:45 Profile #5 A little tyranny is good for us. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Ash Lael E Equals MC What!!!! Member # 5491	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 13:55 Profile Homepage #6 "Tyranny", just maybe, is an excessively strong word? -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 \| Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Jumpin Salmon ? Man, ? Amazing Member # 5755	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 14:07 Profile #7 1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. 2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler. I can think of several examples of tyrannical leadership that are accepted as normal today. this message sponsored by r. santi Posts: 4114 \| Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 14:22 Profile #8 quote: Originally written by Ash Lael: "Tyranny", just maybe, is an excessively strong word? Even if it's only a little tyranny? -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Drew By Committee Member # 4233	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 14:33 Profile #9 I think "autocracy" might be a more applicable/less offending term. Posts: 2242 \| Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
spy-there Agent Member # 1993	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 15:32 Profile #10 It's a plutocracy. Thus I wonder, why games implementing drugs would be banned, while games that provide fast driving, killing, stealing, throwing bombs, torturing and other illegal activities are free available. Does it mean the cash-flow in weapon- and car-business would be higher than in drugs? I doubt it. -------------------- ^ö^ I was a cannibal for twenty-five years. For the rest I have been a vegetarian. George Bernard Shaw Posts: 1420 \| Registered: Wednesday, October 2 2002 07:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 16:02 Profile Homepage #11 quote: Originally written by Drew: The DEA doesn't have that jurisdiction, and any effort to ban games on such a basis would be rightfully attacked as infringing 1st Amendment rights. I can't access the article, but frankly, it seems like the first step down a slippery slope of censorship. The game wasn't actually banned: it was considered for banning, but voluntarily withdrawn from the market by its publisher before a final decision was made. quote: Originally written by Belisarius: The Commonwealth in general has a very weak and narrow concept of free speech; it is not at all uncommon in countries like Australia and New Zealand to ban or limit by law some manner of expression, speech, assembly, etc. on the basis of it being generally offensive or posing a social harm. The unfortunate thing is that this seems to be the accepted state of affairs there, and the number of people who would consider US-style freedoms either desirable or acceptable are minimal. We have a set of laws which, by and large, we are happy with and which work for us. In what way is that unfortunate? (Disclaimer: I'm a utilitarian and don't believe in natural human rights, so don't try a natural-rights argument on me. I've heard 'em all before.) [ Wednesday, November 02, 2005 16:04: Message edited by: Explode Thuryl Now ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Ash Lael E Equals MC What!!!! Member # 5491	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 17:01 Profile Homepage #12 Out of curiosity, spy.there, which games that are freely available on the New Zealand market and have not been considered for banning are you referring to? -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 \| Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 19:09 Profile #13 quote: We have a set of laws which, by and large, we are happy with and which work for us. In what way is that unfortunate? (Disclaimer: I'm a utilitarian and don't believe in natural human rights, so don't try a natural-rights argument on me. I've heard 'em all before.) The reasonable unconditional fear of government leads to an avoidable reduction in quality of life, which presents a system of sub-optimal utility. Many positive rights have no exact gradient: for instance, within freedom of speech, at some point the difference between harmful speech and acceptable speech is very muddy. In fact, 'harmful speech' can extend to almost all speech under certain circumstances: patent nonsense like 'everybody loves nickel' could, theoretically, drive someone with a deathly fear of the metal to suicide under some conditions. Speech, or at least some manner of communication, is a common factor of humanity, and in fact one of the driving components of social interaction. One can infer from that that if any speech is restricted for reasons of utility, all speech is potentially restricted. If all speech is potentially restricted, it is reasonable to fear government intercession in response to any speech. As speech is a basic factor of survival in human society, the fear of government intercession in any incident of speech can be considered essentially unconditional: people can no sooner cease communicating than they can cease eating. The result of restrictions on free expression is a reasonable, unconditional state of fear by the public of the government, which results in a reduced quality of life and thus a state of sub-optimal utility. And before you pose the fear of the nickel-phobe as a factor of countervailing utility, bear in mind that the nickel-phobe is a subset of the population capable of expression, and thus will always always be a smaller proportion of the population than those capable of expression. And for the record, the concept of natural rights demonstrates a presence of universal fear, which ties perfectly into utilitarianism; refusing to prioritize the 'natural rights' results in a system of sub-optimal utility. Just because the value of a thing cannot be measured precisely does not render it valueless. (And also worthy of consideration: if you can't live with the idea of 'natural rights' at all, they're not necessary for the line of argument here; just consider the basically arbitrary restriction of a necessary factor of human life and recognize that it is difficult to build a system of optimal utility around that.) [ Wednesday, November 02, 2005 19:13: Message edited by: Belisarius ] Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Ash Lael E Equals MC What!!!! Member # 5491	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 20:22 Profile Homepage #14 I'm confused. Does the US have no laws at all against libel, or defamation, or lying in court, or anything? -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 \| Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 21:43 Profile #15 Fair point, but libel/defamation laws are restricted to cases in which there is clear intent and perjury laws are specific to speaking under oath. They're not restrictions on free expression for the general welfare. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 22:17 Profile Homepage #16 quote: And before you pose the fear of the nickel-phobe as a factor of countervailing utility, bear in mind that the nickel-phobe is a subset of the population capable of expression, and thus will always always be a smaller proportion of the population than those capable of expression. So? The good of the few can outweigh the good of the many if the good of the few is greater than the good of the many. (I made a hypothetical addressing almost exactly this point a few weeks ago, in case you missed it.) Besides that, though, I'm not convinced that living in a constant state of fear of the government actually results in suboptimal utility, as you claim. Most people live in a constant state of fear from dozens of different sources. In fact, I'd argue that psychologically, most people have a natural level of anxiety that they tend towards, and that removing one source of fear will only shift the objects of their fear without substantially reducing the amount of their fear. In other words, give people one less thing to fear, and they'll start to fear other things more. The billionaire CEO feels the fear of losing his job and his reputation just as acutely as the citizen of a despotic regime fears being imprisoned and tortured to death, even if the one's fear is less reasonable than the other's. It's only when those fears are actually realised that any difference between the two emerges. [ Wednesday, November 02, 2005 22:18: Message edited by: Explode Thuryl Now ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Thursday, November 3 2005 00:08 Profile #17 Measuring utility can easily become as arbitrary as presuming natural rights. But a pretty good utilitarian implementation of utilitarianism ought to be democracy. The British-descended systems of government and law have been functioning democratically for about as long as the US one. Arguably they have been more responsive to the popular will for quite some time, because of the way a few small states can block changes to the US constitution. If all those Commonwealthers didn't find their small tyrannies optimal, they could easily have changed them by now. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Ash Lael E Equals MC What!!!! Member # 5491	written Thursday, November 3 2005 00:24 Profile Homepage #18 quote: Originally written by Belisarius: Fair point, but libel/defamation laws are restricted to cases in which there is clear intent and perjury laws are specific to speaking under oath. They're not restrictions on free expression for the general welfare. Neither is placing decency standards on works of art for mass consumption, though. [ Thursday, November 03, 2005 00:27: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 \| Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Drew By Committee Member # 4233	written Thursday, November 3 2005 04:49 Profile #19 Decency standards are restrictions, Ash. Any "standard" is. Posts: 2242 \| Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Zeviz Nuke and Pave Member # 24	written Thursday, November 3 2005 09:07 Profile Homepage #20 quote: Originally written by Belisarius: ... One can infer from that that if any speech is restricted for reasons of utility, all speech is potentially restricted. ... The result of restrictions on free expression is a reasonable, unconditional state of fear by the public of the government, which results in a reduced quality of life and thus a state of sub-optimal utility. ... By this logic, all of us in America live in constant fear of persecution due to the fact that we aren't allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You've said "if any speech is restricted for reasons of utility, all speech is potentially restricted." So why is it ok to restrict my natural right to yell "fire" wherever I please? Sure, it might hurt some people, but so could that nickel phrase you've quoted. -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 \| Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Ash Lael E Equals MC What!!!! Member # 5491	written Thursday, November 3 2005 10:42 Profile Homepage #21 quote: Originally written by Drew: Decency standards are restrictions, Ash. Any "standard" is. Sure is. So is a restriction on saying something untrue while under oath, or a restriction on shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, as per Zeviz's example. Rereading Beli's post, I might have misunderstood it. But my point was that all of these restrictions are specific to specific situations, so there is no real difference between them, and that point stands. [ Thursday, November 03, 2005 10:43: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 \| Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Drew By Committee Member # 4233	written Thursday, November 3 2005 12:52 Profile #22 It isn't a matter of specific situations so much as intent, and in your example, as well as in the case of libel/defamation, false statements are used to cause harm maliciously and recklessly. This is not the case with art, however lurid. Posts: 2242 \| Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
spy-there Agent Member # 1993	written Thursday, November 3 2005 13:05 Profile #23 quote: Originally written by Ash Lael: Out of curiosity, spy.there, which games that are freely available on the New Zealand market and have not been considered for banning are you referring to? Answering to this is a little bit off topic now +_+ oh well. I talked about games like Need for Speed (illicit speed-driving), Grand Theft Auto (illicit actions), Planet Doom (violence), etc. You could take every 3D Ego shooter with high resolution splatter effects and ban it because of violence and cruelty. But no, the repression goes against drugs. I would rather ban a game that teaches how to break every rule in traffic. Consider: How big is the chance that a kid playing computergames will one day be a big drug lord? And how big is the chance that the grown up kid will drive a car and buy a weapon? You see what I mean? -------------------- ^ö^ I was a cannibal for twenty-five years. For the rest I have been a vegetarian. George Bernard Shaw Posts: 1420 \| Registered: Wednesday, October 2 2002 07:00
Ash Lael E Equals MC What!!!! Member # 5491	written Thursday, November 3 2005 13:17 Profile Homepage #24 quote: Originally written by spy.there: Answering to this is a little bit off topic now +_+ oh well. I talked about games like Need for Speed (illicit speed-driving), Grand Theft Auto (illicit actions), Planet Doom (violence), etc. You could take every 3D Ego shooter with high resolution splatter effects and ban it because of violence and cruelty. But no, the repression goes against drugs. I would rather ban a game that teaches how to break every rule in traffic. Consider: How big is the chance that a kid playing computergames will one day be a big drug lord? And how big is the chance that the grown up kid will drive a car and buy a weapon? You see what I mean? Not sure about the others, but Grand Theft Auto is banned in New Zealand. quote: Originally written by Drew: It isn't a matter of specific situations so much as intent, and in your example, as well as in the case of libel/defamation, false statements are used to cause harm maliciously and recklessly. This is not the case with art, however lurid. A game that teaches kids to commit crimes is arguably causing harm maliciously and recklessly. [ Thursday, November 03, 2005 13:20: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 \| Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00