New York Times on Slamdance
There is an article by Heather Chaplin (author of Smartbomb) in the Arts section of the New York Times about the Slamdance controversy. The article is a very balanced look at the affair, though I think that once again, Peter Baxter fails to provide a compelling argument for why he pulled the game. He mentions that he doesn't find the game "immoral," but that when "you're responsible for presenting that work to the public, it becomes more complicated." Which, of course, begs the question of why it becomes more complicated than screening controversial films.
Later in the article, he claims to feel that games "are potentially a far more powerful medium than film," but doesn't seem to see the irony in his statement that "games are going to affect us in different ways, in ways we don’t fully understand yet." Of course, if we choose to ban games that provoke difficult to understand responses from public venues, we won't learn much, will we?
In the end, however, it seems to come down to a fear of civil suits. Not an actual suit, or an actual threat of a suit, but just a fear of a threat of a suit. Which seems altogether a very weak case, since the screenings were not held "in public" but in a space which required a costly pass to enter.
Kellee has a nice quote, and the article also mentions Eddo.