That Penny Arcade Controversy

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I think the core of your examples is: does the store have a right to not sell content it doesn't like?

IMO any store is within moral, ethical, and legal rights to not sell any product they wish not to sell. If they try to enforce their choices upon others through unfair pressure, taking legal action, or lobbying for restrictions under the law, they are not within their moral or ethical rights. These businesses may have to deal with their own repercussions for choosing not to carry certain goods (I probably wouldn't patronize the example English Bookstore, e.g.).

Walmart and the three platforms were not trying to restrict Rockstar Games right to publish an AO game. Rockstar still had every right to seek other platforms, self-publish, etc. They limited themselves by wanting to do business only through these platforms and Walmart. Probably for good reason, but I find no fault in anyone else for not wanting to carry an AO game.

 

[Janx]

...snip..plenty of good points..snip..
They are definitely a problem if they're allowed to actually destroy something. And you should certainly defend yourself if the accusations become all too real. But fighting against big noisy blowhards that really have no power to destroy you and that will move on to their next outrage when Miley performs at the VMAs is wasted effort that just makes you look as crazy as them.

I think the problem is, these people DO have more power than they should.

I've seen these types in the workplace, almost always in higher positions of management.

And on the internet, these bullies seem to be persuasive enough to attract enough followers to get some power.

While you're right that the best choice is to take the high road (and not let the PA guys write any responses), it is dangerous to dismiss these people.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I feel that there's nothing immoral about not patronizing something, or telling others why you don't like them.

Agreed.

I feel that's different in regards to attempting to make something cease being available to any who want it, however.

Here, I say "That depends."

1) I think some things should not be available because they are simply indefensible, like kiddie porn.

2) I think that MOST things should not be made unavailable by the government.

3) However, I think private individuals- singularly and in groups- can advocate and take action against some things in an effort to make them unavailable, and others are free to support those things, all completely within the strictures of ethics and morality. That doesn't mean I think one side or the other is right*, just that neither is acting immorally.







* because THAT is something that depends on the individual thing in question.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I think the problem is, these people DO have more power than they should.

I've seen these types in the workplace, almost always in higher positions of management.

The workplace is a funny animal. I do think issues get overblown too quickly and too easily. But I don't think the resolution from the top is always necessarily because they agree with it. They want us to work. Anything that stirs up from personal beliefs just gets fundamentally cut out. It's the easy way out, unfortunately. Add to that harrassment and hostile work environment, etc. and you get management that rolls over and gives in too easily so they don't get the company sued and lose their job.

And on the internet, these bullies seem to be persuasive enough to attract enough followers to get some power.

I've not heard of any that were successful in destroying anything, but I'm sure there's some story out there somewhere I've missed.

While you're right that the best choice is to take the high road (and not let the PA guys write any responses), it is dangerous to dismiss these people.

Agreed.

 

[Janx]

Controversial art and speech are necessary for society. But it has a cost to its creators, and it always will. It can backfire, sometimes ruinously. If you don't want to be a part of that equation, don't engage society on that level.

There is this as well.

Knowing that like 20% of the female population has been raped, I will never ever feature rape in my gaming campaigns.
Gaming is usually kind of personal, and not knowing who has suffered or knows somebody, it's just got no use in my game. I can think of other horrible non-sexual things to do to PCs and NPCs (like roasting and eating them).

However, in other non-gaming circles, I may refer to corporate price-gouging as "wallet rape" (to which somebody on this forum objected to), or the relentless involuntary ear licking my dog gives as "ear rape". Most people get that these things are not derogatory toward victims and have nothing to do with the real thing. Folks who don't get that bug the stuffing out of me as they are lobbying to elevate their interpretation over mine, the speaker.

If I give in to such objections, I am ceding power over my self expression. As much as "the slippery slope" may be cited on other political topics, letting others decide that their inability to parse words per their context means they can restrict everyone's use of them is indeed a slippery slope. At some point, we will be reduced to just "ug" until somebody argues that it refers to their sexual paraphenalia and that's offensive too.

I think it will be simpler if we mulch everybody who got offended by the original PA comic. And then mulched everybody who bought the Dickwolf shirt.

And then mulched everybody who thought about the PA debacle.

 

[Janx]

The workplace is a funny animal. I do think issues get overblown too quickly and too easily. But I don't think the resolution from the top is always necessarily because they agree with it. They want us to work. Anything that stirs up from personal beliefs just gets fundamentally cut out. It's the easy way out, unfortunately. Add to that harrassment and hostile work environment, etc. and you get management that rolls over and gives in too easily so they don't get the company sued and lose their job.

We may not be thinking of the same examples.

I have seen upper tier managers and directors who will read an email, and start a firestorm about what a person said and how they said it.

In review of the original message, in most cases, while they could be worded differently (and what message couldn't), there was no ill intent in the message and nothing actually wrong with it when addressed to and read by a normal person.

In virtually all cases, said offendee was often seen being guilty of sending messages that could equally be mis-interpreted.

In effect, these were cases of somebody exercising power to bully somebody else over their own paranoia

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If I give in to such objections, I am ceding power over my self expression. As much as "the slippery slope" may be cited on other political topics, letting others decide that their inability to parse words per their context means they can restrict everyone's use of them is indeed a slippery slope. At some point, we will be reduced to just "ug" until somebody argues that it refers to their sexual paraphenalia and that's offensive too.

While I agree in general, here, the initial wave of misunderstanding was on the part a group of people who are understandibly hypersensitized to a particular word.

While I don't think words should be excised from the language, when you are a speaker, you have to also be aware of your audience.

You've seen pictures of my CD collection? I guarantee you that it contains adult lyrical content. I do not play that music when kids are around. Some, I don't play when certain other adults are around.

PA, as producers of a web comic, don't have the luxury of that kind of control. Their product goes out for all & sundry to read...and that means there is always a possibility to offend. What they CAN control is how they react when someone expresses offense. Of all the options they had- including simply ignoring the complaints- they escalated.

And i have to say, I'm an attorney of 17 years experience, and I've been in training to be a mediator and arbitrator for the past 3 years: I have NEVER seen an instance of (non-violent) escalation of a conflict or disagreement that shortened the process.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

We may not be thinking of the same examples.

I honestly never encountered that before. Interesting.

 

[Cadence]

For @Alzrius ,

A) Say a store has a stated policy of "All products we sell are legal or approved by their industries for anyone aged 13 and up." because they market themselves as family friendly as a business strategy. That is ok because it isn't specifically designed to curtail anyone's expression."

Gack. I was worried so much about the rest of the examples I botched the set-up. So here is a cleaned up version (I hope).

Am I correct in interpreting your personal framework for the following?

A) Consider a store that markets itself as "family friendly" as a business strategy and has a number of policies to help with this (choice of music played in the store, employee dress code, type of items displayed by the register, etc...). To make the overarching store concept workable (so they don't have to inspect every product in detail) they've come up with a screen for what they carry: "We won't sell any product that is legally un-purchasable by someone who is 13 years of age, or that is rated to have a minimum appropriate age older than 13. So, alcohol and cigarettes are out. In movies, for example, G, PG, and PG-13 are Good, R and NC17 are out." As such they will not carry the AO rated Rockstar game. Am I correct that you would be ok with this because the exclusion of Rockstar games is based on the marketing attempt to create a store atmosphere, and the restriction of someone else's creative expression is just a byproduct?

B) A store owner finds sex and violence immoral and doesn't want anyone to sell such products. They actively pursue this goal, and as part of that pursuit their store also has the G-PG-PG13=ok, R-NC17=bad type policy. Am I correct that this is a solid example of their exclusion of Rockstar games being bad because the overarching policy is explicitly to deny someone's creative expression?

C) A store owner believes that it is immoral to run a business involving extreme violence or graphic sex. As such, they would have to decline the AO Rockstar game. Am I correct that their only moral option is to choose another business to go into? Can we view running a store (the design, set-up, marketing, etc...) as a creative process? If so, is Rockstar being immoral by asking this store to surrender its own creative process by carrying their AO game?

D) A store owner believes that videos and games depicting pornography and violence are actively exploitative and harm the people who make and view them? Am I correct that they could morally decline to carry the AO game on the same moral reasoning they could decline to carry the child pornography? (As the morality and legality are separate issues and they think it is exploiting and harming others).

Personally, I tend to be hypocritical in my views of this (if I think its wrong so should they, and if they think something I like is wrong then they're wrong) and would like to work on that before I have to make my own decisions on some of them.

In general, as long as monopolies and collusion are illegal, and no discrimination is occurring based on race, religion, orientation, disability, etc... , I don't see a moral obligation for the store to use its time and money to enable creative enterprises they disagree with.

 

[jeffh]

Cadence, I'm not the original target of the above post, but for my own part my responses would be as follows:

• A: Unproblematic.
• B: Nothing you have specifically described them as doing strikes me as the least bit unethical, or indeed, as differing in any significant respect from what you describe in A. Some of the unspecified other things they do in pursuit of this goal might be problematic - you haven't given enough information to say.
• C: I don't see why he'd have to go into some other business. That's crazy. Why couldn't he just not carry that game?
• D: Unproblematic.

Alzrius can speak for himself, but it seems to me as though you're reading far too much into what he said about not restricting others' freedom of expression. None of the things you described seem to me to count as that. Some of them might stem from an attitude that, when expressed in other ways, does have that problem, but none of them in themselves have that issue.

Relatedly, I think some people in this thread are thinking about freedom of speech in a sloppy and over-broad way. On the views of, as far as I can see, pretty much every serious philosopher and political theorist ever to write about the topic, you're not restricting someone's speech in any objectionable sense just by refusing to provide them with a platform and an audience - especially if forcing you to do so would infringe your property rights. You shouldn't stop someone from expressing their views, but that doesn't oblige you to help them to do so.

(And you certainly can't restrict someone's freedom of speech just by criticizing what they say. Anyone who claims this is trying to unreasonably restrict your freedom of speech, and anyone who claims this in the name of freedom of speech is either a hypocrite or an idiot, and that's an inclusive "or".)