Ludicidal Tendencies

Your stance on this issue is quite beyond the pale young lady. Quite frankly, it is liberals like yourself who are destroying this once great nation from within, making us very vulnerable to attack by terrorists from without. Do you have ANY shame? Do you see ANY limits to freedom of "expression"? And by the way, can you please show me where in the Constitution of the United States of America it mentions ANYTHING about freedom of "expression"?

Thought not...

How about a RPG game where you become a child molestor preying on little kids? Would you like to offer a scholarship for that too?

I highly doubt your support of freedom of "expression" will extend to my current expression of distaste over your perverted support of this vile game. Maybe you'll surprise me, but I doubt it.

By the way, was the consent to use the likenesses of the victims acquired? Don't they have any rights? If you libs supported victims' rights as much as you cry for criminals' rights, this would be a much better country indeed.

Good day.

Three comments to "libdisembowler":

1) I notice you're not brave enough to leave a real name or email address here. Only brave enough to stand in the virtual dark and throw rocks.

2) Freedom of speech (i.e. expression) is guaranteed under the First Amendment and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that videogames are protected under that Amendment in 2003. Look it up.

3) I have the power to remove your post from my blog, but because I believe strongly in your right to make comments I disagree with, I won't exercise that power.

Enough said.

to 'lildisemboweler'

i find it ironic that you disparage violence and the glorification of subject matter that some may find distasteful, and yet choose so graphic a handle.

to tracy,
i applaud you and USC for what must have been a trying decision. for videogames to be respected as art, they must be treated as such by all parties involved. USC's attempts to examine them in a classroom setting are an important first step in the right direction.

I think it is evident that "libdisemboweler" has never so much as played SCMRPG; if he had he would know that no victims' likenesses were used in the game and, furthermore, such use would be protected by public domain imagery.

There have been film about child molesters (such as Fritz Lang's "M" and Todd Solondz's "Happiness") so clearly there stands artistic justification for a videogame on the same subject matter. Games, like all forms of expression, should be evaluated on their CONTENT rather than strictly on their form.

From art examining the issue is pedophilia to the First Ammendment and even geopolitics, "libdisemboweler" has quite a bit of re-thinking to do.

Libdisemboweler -
In no other country in the world is freedom of expression as cherished as it is in the United States. Freedom Of Expression is what lets you voice your opinion without fear of being disappeared.

If that's what you find so vile, perhaps you should move to one of the multitude of countries where freedom of expression is found under the heel a jackboot.

Here is the Kotaku article from May, 2006 in which they interview a Columbine survivor who played the game:

http://kotaku.com/gaming/feature/columbine-survivor-talks-about-columbine-rpg-171966.php

"It probably sounds a bit odd for someone like me to say, but I appreciate the fact at least to some degree that something like this was made. I think that at least it gets people talikng about Columbine in a unique perspective, which is probably a good thing."

Hm, it's getting cut off in my browser, so here I've broken it up into two lines:

http://kotaku.com/gaming/feature/columbine-survivor-talks-about-columbine
-rpg-171966.php

I don't even know where to start with that first comment. The Constitution does not mention anything about freedom of expression??? Are you saying that we, as Americans, should have no such freedom because the term 'freedom of expression' is not found in the Constitution?? Point out to me exactly where in the Constitution your 'right to not be offended' is granted, please.
So, what's next? Should we burn books that offend you? Should we destroy art that offends you? Where do we stop? Who decides what is offensive and what we should be protected from? You? Me? Maybe we should burn people at the stake for disagreeing with you? Let me explain to you just how America works as you seem to be a small minded, narrow viewed quasi-American.
Company sells inferior product = company doesn't sell much = company stops existing
Game maker makes offensive game = game maker does not sell many = game goes away
We call that supply and demand and THAT is the American way of Democracy! If you are offended, don't expose yourself to that which offends you. Don't download, buy, play or read about the game. It is that simple. Your comparison between this game and a game about pedophilia is a testament to your ignorance. Only one with a poor argument would stoop to such an ignorant, unrelated comparison. Now, here's what you do. Get back on and post again, comparing all of us to Nazis and end with a refusal to come back. You may vary the subject matter if you wish, but that is how all zealots 'win' religious arguments and how all ignoramuses 'win' any other argument. Simply state that you are right, everyone else is stupid, we are all and state that we will never hear from you again because we are so stupid. You may also wish to call us poopy-heads..

Last post first:

"Your comparison between this game and a game about pedophilia is a testament to your ignorance. Only one with a poor argument would stoop to such an ignorant, unrelated comparison."

Are you saying you would ban a role playing game in which the player plays a pedophile and simulates, even learns how to entice children into having sex, and then if they choose tortures and murders the little tykes? Would you ban a game like that? If you would, how does that not make you the same kind of jack booted nazi book burning fascist as me?

The Constitution says freedom of speech, NOT freedom of expression, which might include beating the crap out of a Japanese hybrid or burning the flag, fine if you are on your own property destroying what you have bought but disturbing the peace and littering if you do it out in public, and not protected by the Constitution as many liberals would have one believe.

As far as banning books, you should discuss this amongst yourselves because the last time I checked, the Bible was banned in many public schools. Are you liberals fighting to make sure that book is on the public school library shelves along with Heather Has Two Mommies? Didn't think so.

Now in no particular order:

"1) I notice you're not brave enough to leave a real name or email address here. Only brave enough to stand in the virtual dark and throw rocks."

Yes, you are correct. The internet is quite dangerous. If my real name was on here, my property would already have been vandalized by liberals exercising their "right" to freedom of expression, just like the liberal Army officer who vandalized cars at airports with a Bush/Cheney sticker on them.

"i find it ironic that you disparage violence and the glorification of subject matter that some may find distasteful, and yet choose so graphic a handle."

Yes, I love irony. Especially the irony of many (not all) liberals who stand up so bravely for their interpretation of the 1st Amendment but fall very silent when it comes to the 2nd Amendment as they try to confiscate guns and take away the citizens' ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. It's also ironic that Hitler also banned guns, but liberals call conservatives Nazis. If you liberals really distrust and hate Bush so much, you would support the 2nd Amendment as much as you support your interpretation of the 1st.

I'm impressed that my first post stayed up here though. Kudos. But lets be honest. If it wasn't there, there wouldn't be a dissenting voice here at all, and liberals appreciate dissent above all else so I'm just trying to keep y'all happy.

I hope you all have a fabulous day.

What a load of crap.

What about the company that runs the competition. Are you demanding that they allow any and every game...therefore taking away their first amendment write NOT to support or sponsor or promote a game?

There is no censorship, the game is alive and well and no one is trying to stop it, a company has just decided that the tragic and brutal death of my cousin by mentally ill children is not a reason for diversion.

No one has tried to halt the production or distribution of the game, just expressing their freedom NOT to sponsor or promote the game.

If you want to pull out because you do not agree with the decision, then have the balls to say that...but do not be a liar and pretend that you are standing up for the Constitution..no Constitutional laws were broken.

I hope you never have someone you know and loved killed like I have at Columbine and if you have the unfortunate experience, I hope and pray to whatever Gods there are that you do not have to suffer someone making a joke, a mockery and and a game of it, and if that happens, I hope and pray that you find someone that will tell you that even though there is freedom of speech, there is also responsibility.

The Slamdance did not silence speech, they expressed their American responsibility, and I thank them for it.

As a Southern California (San Diego) I am ashamed that a USC organization mistakenly wrapped themselves in a false reading of the Constitution. But That is to be expected from Children in college.

I hope you eventually mature.

KEVIN ELLIOTT

Kevin, I wouldn't wish that kind of pain and suffering you and your friends and family experienced on anyone. You have my condolences for your loss. Having a video game made about a shooting that a friend, relative, or myself was involved in wouldn't thrill me either (and that's an understatement).

My reactions wouldn't by any different from yours. But, after the initial emotions ran their course, I would stop, think and ask questions. Why make a game about this event? What exactly is it about?

There are at least two reviews on this game written by people who actually played it. You should read them as they both say that the game isn't really what most people think it is. The game isn't an explicit how-to on committing murder, nor does it glamorize it, but instead gives you a unique perspective and makes you think.

I'd like to respond to each part of your comments:

Having a right to freedom of expression is easy enough for an individual; a person can choose for his- or herself what choices to make, what games to play, and who to listen (or not listen) to. A person, or small group of persons, making decisions for a larger group is far more difficult because everyone is going to have a different opinion. While some people will applaud USC's decision to pull their sponsorship, some will cast them down to the depths. Some will say USC made their decision based on politics, others because they believe it was in protest. What's really important is that you, for better or worse, make your own mind up about it. That's part of what makes the 1st Amendment so great, you can come up with your own opinion about anything and tell anyone, anywhere about it. Or, you can listen (or not listen) and say it's “a load of crap.”

You have the right to say that, and it's good that you did.

That there is no censorship applies not merely to video games, but other mediums, and with (fairly) good reason. If we had censorship, as others have said, where would it end? Censorship can start with you, the invidual. You don't like something, ignore it, tell others what you think of that something. If you don't like a book, don't read it. If there's something on television you don't like change the channel or turn it off. If there's a political issue you don't like, speak now or forever hold your peace. It's all on you.

You're right, no laws were broken. But, according to their statement, they said:

“It is our belief that the removal of Super Columbine Massacre RPG from the festival finalists, while within the rights of the organizers, was short-sighted and detrimental to the overall project of supporting independent game makers. It puts a limit on the notion of what independent games are, or may become and effectively communicates that Slamdance celebrates independent games only so far as they do not make us uncomfortable. It stymies the painstaking process by which games are struggling to become a legitimate art form.”

They weren't talking about the constitution being violated, but exercising their own right to it, so they were actually supporting the 1st amendment. So, they're not liars.

It wasn't Slamdance, but Peter Baxter who ultimately made the decision to pull the game. Being in charge, he did have the right to do it. He made a decision and stuck to it. I respect that.

That they are children in college who misread the constitution is a matter of opinion too, and you have the right to say that.

But, I wouldn't say that they made a false reading of the constitution. There are all kinds of people in the world, of all ages, races, gender, nationality, and sexual orientation. I've heard of 30-year-old adults that have acted like children, and they've long since graduated from college. Yet, there are also children with way more wisdom and maturity than adults.

For the record, I'm 27 and consider myself a work-in-progress on maturity.

What's important is that it's all a matter of opinion. Don't blind yourselves with grief, pain and anger. If you do, you lose your own self.

Well, my last comment (and probably this one too) was completely censored.

Talk about your irony...

But that's the way it is with liberals. Scratch the surface of a liberal and nine times out of ten you will find a violent hard core Stalinist who won't hesitate to censor someone they disagree with.

Thanks for proving me right Ms. Fullerton.

And I hope you have a fantastic day!

Your censorship of my last post completely made my week. I just KNEW that would happen though.

And sure enough...

Okay let me try again since my last post wasn't censored...

For those who think comparing this to a game glorifying child predators, are you saying you would ban such a game then?

For those who say there is already a lot of film and art about child porn, child rape, and violence against kids, so what's the limit then? Should child porn be legal according to your interpretation of the 1st Amendment?

Now let me just say that I'm all for first person shooters. I loved Duke Nuke 'Em, Medal of Honor, Quake, Quake Arena, Doom, etc.

I see myself as kind of like the guy in Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker series. A tough as nails guy who wouldn't hesitate to rip someone's ear off in a bar fight, but when the white people massacred a village of Native Americans, including the children, this tough guy would have no part of it. He drew the line at harming children.

And that's where I draw my line too.

Each of you can draw your own line wherever you want to, or draw no line at all, and we can agree to disagree. But I agree with these Slamdance folks wholeheartedly.

Hehehe, libdisemboweler, stop commenting until you have something constructive. Who started throwing around the insults? Not Tracy. You and Kevin have turned a discussion on an extremely interesting and important issue into a mud-throwing contest. That is immature and idiotic.

If you want to debate the topic, than I am very interested in your opinion, even though it is very different from mine. Like the purpose of Slamdance is to highlight games that push the boundaries of the medium, the comment section on a blog post is meant to discuss the topic of the blog. This is not a place for you to voice hatred for people you do not even know.

Dear libdisemboweler,

For the record and since I have full access to the blog administration, our junk filter rated your last two comments as junk and did not publish them. It is probably because you mentioned some words the Movable Type API found offensive. I un-junked your comments. I find this incident quite ironic...

Just because we don't agree and even though your tone is very patronizing (assuming all people posting here are young students or that young people are inferior), we welcome a dialogue as it is the only path to tolerance of each other. Just remember that you are not the center of the universe and just as you have a right to protest and display your opinion, so do those who disagree with you.

Even the most fanatic religious folks believe that someone above them (a.k.a. god) may have a different opinion so nothing is above dispute. We are all interpretative and malleable beings.

Cordially,
The admin

Well, I'm so happy that all my posts have been unbanned; so elated in fact that this whole episode has almost completely restored my faith in humanity.

Yes, I may be abrasive but this is my good, polite side. You all should have seen my posts on the yahoo message boards before they took them down.

Well, I think I've about said my piece.

I'd just conclude by saying that in the end it's not necessarily about who knows more and who is ignorant; instead it all comes down to priorities. Different people have different priorities and different ways they think are best for achieving the priorities they might share.

My priority is protecting children. And in this case we have a monkey see monkey do situation where the more Columbine is glorified the more it will be imitated, at least in my opinion. I'm sure many people who support this game also share my concern, but their priority may be the first amendment or they may not see this game as that harmful or they may feel they can better protect children in other ways.

Lastly, I don't think the game should be banned by the government, but if the honchos of this convention don't want to show it off, I think they are exercising good judgment.

That's all.

I'm a professional game developer and a amateur conservative. I'm also completely supportive of the uproar over this situation. "Libdisemboweler" obviously does not understand the festival as films that he would find much more tasteless have gone over with not so much as a peep. The uproar surrounding this situation is not "Super Columbine Massacre RPG is a good game and deserves a platform." I've played it. It is terrible. Its cliche's make me cringe with embarrassment. I disagree with the jury's recommendation to put it in the finalists. The argument is "Games deserve the same artistic freedoms as films or books." I support games that try to do something different that may be in poor taste. SCMRPG is in very poor taste.

In the end, it is moot because the festival and games within got much more publicity and recognition than if there had been no controversy in the first place.