Moral Objects In Realtion to Video Games

[Dorth]

By "a lion head game", I meant Fable or Fable 2, can't remember, where the CEO walked in on a tester who had littered an entire village with the body of all the children he killed. They asked him why he did that and he said because he could.

I AM against censoring. BUT. I also find vile the fact it is acceptable to depict mass violence as a basic thing in games and movies when most adult won't even be violent physically once in their entire adulthood, but everything gets hush hush when you talk about sex and nudity, which pretty much everyone will do. A LOT.

While no one can FORCE another to act a certain way, at least while being reasonable, it would certainly seems to be a civic duty. You are not forced to help a kid being mugged. But common, you are a piece of poop if you don't. KKK SHOULD have the right to express themselves, but I do hope that no matter what kind of Karma or God or Power Being or whatever will have it in for them. And I'd hope people would do their best to schedules events away from them. And not vote for them.

In the end, no matter what happens, one is always faced with his own morality. It's only a matter of just how much you are willing to compromise. I once worked with a tester that refused to test (and thus help) an online game of lotteries, pokers and such because he was christian and morally against it. He was just put on other project and I really admire that guy. Standing for your values is what count and you might educate your children all you want to teach them right from wrong, but you can't teach the neigboors' kids and if one of them flip out and harm your child, you'll be left with the sorrow of having backed a game that might have been just what was needed to push that kid.

[rogerborg]

a legal precedent is all what is needed to turn this over, though.

And an appeal to reverse it again. Since we're playing "what if".

no sireee,

once a precedent has been established, it cannot be overturned.

First, precedents are only binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction (which means district, State or Circuit) in the US). They're not even binding on peer courts in the same jurisdiction, although they are used to inform their judgements.

Second, a precedent can always be overturned by a higher court. To suggest otherwise is to imply that when Judge Bumpkin of Hazzard County renders a verdict on a novel point of law that it sets the precedent for all courts of all levels in that jurisdiction irrevocably.

There is a danger of a culture of culpability creeping up on games developers, but it's a small danger. As the litigants (thus far) have been avaricious opportunists going after the deep pockets, it's only successful companies that will be sued, and they'll likely continue to pay their Danegeld quietly out of court and write it off as a business expense. Where cases do make it to court on "principle", they are quickly dismissed.

If you want to know why it's a low risk, it's because where US legislatures have actually enacted statutes prohibiting the sale of adult content to minors, the courts habitually overturn them on First Amendment grounds. It's not a real issue, at least not in the US. Communist hell holes like China, North Korea or Great Britain are a different matter, but they're largely irrelevant anyway.

Do you know of any counter examples of case or standing statute law that chill the development of games?

[dlangdev]

yup, true, done with this thread.

have to go and exit this thread.

been fun chatting about it, though.