That Penny Arcade Controversy

[Alzrius]

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.[/i]

I agree that certain things necessitate immoral acts, and by way of that may be (as per my previous definition of immorality) expunged from society. I will say though that I'm not sure I agree with the qualifier "by the government" in your second point. Why is it okay for someone to make something unavailable to others due to their lack of governmental authority?

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.

In terms of "advocating," if that means "expressing their opinion" then I don't disagree, but otherwise taking action against something (presuming that the thing is an instance of creative expression) to make it unavailable strikes me as being immoral (with the usual caveat that this is a generalization for a moral framework that works best when applied to specifics).

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?

It took me way too long to get back to this, due to a combination of my home computer down and the difficulty of finding the time to post this on my work computer. Apologies for the delay on my end.

That said, here are my answers to 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?

Before anything else, I want to reiterate (simply because I think that it's important to keep these caveats forefront in the course of my responses) that the nature of the moral framework I listed previously relies upon the interpretation as to the nature of the act under discussion (e.g. asking what is happening here). I bring this up again to highlight the degree of ambiguity that will more often than not be a part of this consideration, since you can't know the other person's intent and can't judge the consequences until after the fact (and sometimes not even then). You can judge a particular action to be X, and someone else can judge it to be Y, and quite often that'll be it - you'll need to agree to disagree.

Likewise, I want to restate that this is my own personal framework and the responses are likewise reflective of me, and nothing else.

The above scenario can be interpreted as "selling only products that fit within an established theme of items for sale," much in the same way that you wouldn't expect a furniture store to sell cars. While I personally wouldn't care for that particular theme, it doesn't strike me as being the same as refusing to grant a venue to a product based on the nature of the content (hence why, in the actual instance of Manhunt 2 I mentioned previously, I said I found the moral fault to be with the video game companies).

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?

I respectfully disagree with jeffh here in that I do think that this runs afoul of the negative duty "do not suppress another's creative expression." Given that in this example it's very hard to interpret this action as being anything other than an attempt to stop a given media from reaching the public since the person under examination doesn't like it, I'd call this a breach of that duty.

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?

The first question is a fairly loaded one, as you're asking what their moral responses are. To the latter question (asking if running a business can be seen as creative expression), I can tell you that I personally don't think that it is (which obviates your third question). For the former, I'm reluctant to comment on what another person's moral options are, since I don't know what moral framework they're using to make their decisions - that's why I highlighted above that these answers are specific to me.

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).

In this case, the best answer I can give is "if they're using the same moral framework that I am, I suppose they could," but this carries a very big "but" with it (and I like big but's) in that I don't agree with the underlying reasoning that led to this particular ranking of moral action - that is, I don't agree that depictions of pornography and violance are exploitive and harmful to the viewer. Ergo, I'd still disagree with their decision; just not the process by which they reached it.

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.

Nobody is consistent all the time, whether due to acquiring new information, changing opinions, or simple human nature. As I noted above, if someone reinterprets the nature of a given action, that alone is enough to change the entire moral judgment that can be passed upon it. That's notwithstanding alterations to the moral framework itself (e.g. elevating something from being supererogatory to being a positive duty).

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.

They don't have to enable it; they just have to not disable it via the venue(s) they control.

 

[Janx]

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".)

In the sloppy form of freedom of speech, I can say what I want, and you can say what you want.

The conflict is when I say something, and you not only don't like it and say something in response, but then use your speech to try to squelch, intimidate, or silence mine.

Let's say my blog/comic strip says "I hate watermelon"

You disagree with that, so you start an "I love Watermelon" website.

Seems fine to me, and probably most people in the sloppy freedom of speech world.

Now let's say you really object to my hating of watermelon.

So now you start telling people to avoid my site, because I am a watermelon hater.

That's kind of negative, and ratcheting things up a notch from just trying to extol the virtues of watermelon and thus shape the malleable minds of America.

Now let's say you crank up the rhetoric that me and other people who hate watermelon are evil and are a detriment to society.

That's really negative.

I can't say if that's right or wrong in the moral sense. It's probably legal in the legal sense.

But it's crossing a line from presenting facts and opinion to trying to silence my speech.

I think part of the reason I object to this (and maybe Alzrius, but it's been a long thread to be sure), is that it goes from you and me presenting basic info and letting the market decide (do I get more followers on my site or do you?), and instead attempts to manipulate people into choosing your side over mine.

In my view, if watermelon is so awesome, that truth should be self evident and I should have few people agreeing with my site. Thus, sales of my anti-watermelon stickers will be very low, etc.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

But it's crossing a line from presenting facts and opinion to trying to silence my speech.

Not really. If they were lobbying to get your "watermelon hate" site taken down and banned from all forms of media, that would be trying to silence your speech.

Just telling others not to listen to you is not. Those people still have the opportunity to listen to you. Now, the negative means used against you may be impolite, immoral, even illegal, but I don't see your example as someone trying to silence you.

It's like the tree falling in the woods. Of course it makes a sound. Only philosophical arguments make it a silent falling tree.

 

[Neonchameleon]

When you wear Team Dickwolf shirts, sell Team Dickwolf shirts, or take as your mascot a one note monster whose only purpose is to rape people it is time to reevaluate your life choices. When, after three years, your biggest regret is that you stopped using a fictional monster whose only know attribute was that it was a rapist then it's going to take an audit of your life top to bottom.

The rest was mostly feedback loops and internet hype - miscommunication happens and easily gets blown out of proportion. (The original comic isn't something I have a problem with - and neither is the response.)

 

[billd91]

When, after three years, your biggest regret is that you stopped using a fictional monster whose only know attribute was that it was a rapist then it's going to take an audit of your life top to bottom.

Fortunately, nobody said that. The question put to the PA guys was when had they felt their business manager, Robert, had made a mistake. That's not about a biggest regret by a long shot. The posted apology says a lot more about regretting everything involved in the follow-up to initial strip including how they handled the initial response and making the merchandise in the first place. So no, there is no information out there that I've seen that says his biggest regret is stopping using the dickwolves.

 

[Janx]

When you wear Team Dickwolf shirts, sell Team Dickwolf shirts, or take as your mascot a one note monster whose only purpose is to rape people it is time to reevaluate your life choices. When, after three years, your biggest regret is that you stopped using a fictional monster whose only know attribute was that it was a rapist then it's going to take an audit of your life top to bottom.

The rest was mostly feedback loops and internet hype - miscommunication happens and easily gets blown out of proportion. (The original comic isn't something I have a problem with - and neither is the response.)

As bill91 pointed out, that ain't what PA said they regretted, and that kind of misinterpretation is exactly how this kind of blow up started.

In other news, there's some guy in Texas selling these tailgate skins that look like the empty truckbed with a woman tied up in the back.

Of course there's a huge rally to shut that kind of thing down.

My view is, people sporting that tailgate art or the Team Dickwolf shirt have publicized their jerk status. You don't need to rally against the product, the product has done you a service. You now know exactly who not to hire, date or do business with.

Though in the case of the tailgate kidnappee art, if I saw it on the road, I'd be inclined to call 911 with "I'm driving on I-10, and there's this black truck in front of me that it looks like the tailgate is down and there's a woman tied up in the back of it."

The problem takes care of itself.

 

[Janx]

Not really. If they were lobbying to get your "watermelon hate" site taken down and banned from all forms of media, that would be trying to silence your speech.

Just telling others not to listen to you is not. Those people still have the opportunity to listen to you. Now, the negative means used against you may be impolite, immoral, even illegal, but I don't see your example as someone trying to silence you.

It's like the tree falling in the woods. Of course it makes a sound. Only philosophical arguments make it a silent falling tree.

The scenario I'm really asking, is if I only post on my site, and you only post on your site (or similar sites), is it possible for one of us to cross the line of breaching the other's free speech?

At some point, speech is about calling to action, so at some point your speech MIGHT include trying to shut me down or shut me up.

 

[billd91]

In other news, there's some guy in Texas selling these tailgate skins that look like the empty truckbed with a woman tied up in the back.

Of course there's a huge rally to shut that kind of thing down.

My view is, people sporting that tailgate art or the Team Dickwolf shirt have publicized their jerk status. You don't need to rally against the product, the product has done you a service. You now know exactly who not to hire, date or do business with.

Though in the case of the tailgate kidnappee art, if I saw it on the road, I'd be inclined to call 911 with "I'm driving on I-10, and there's this black truck in front of me that it looks like the tailgate is down and there's a woman tied up in the back of it."

The problem takes care of itself.

So... you find it more problematic to rally to ostracize or boycott a producer than to send the police to harass a product user?

 

[Janx]

So... you find it more problematic to rally to ostracize or boycott a producer than to send the police to harass a product user?

both are probably wrong, but calling 911 is funnier.

There's also the difference that rallying a cause is me trying to influence others to support my cause, whereas calling 911 is me directly using a tool (911 and that technically worded phrasing) to make the problem with that tailgate art known to the owner.

It's actually probably not a good use of 911 for other reasons.

And at its simplest, knowing who the jerk-holes in town are and boycotting those individuals specifically is more valuable than trying to stop the source of the material.

So in reality, I prefer that I choose whose practices I don't like and to avoid those people/businesses than trying to persuade other people to my viewpoint through a large public exercise. Other people are free to observe the world and come to their own conclusions without me trying to lobby them to my cause.

Naturally, there's some hypocrisy there, in that pretty much all communication contains attempts at persuasion.

I'm less keen on the big scale persuasion attempts to try to shut somebody else down just because I object to it.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The scenario I'm really asking, is if I only post on my site, and you only post on your site (or similar sites), is it possible for one of us to cross the line of breaching the other's free speech?

At some point, speech is about calling to action, so at some point your speech MIGHT include trying to shut me down or shut me up.

Trying to get you shut down is not infringement, IMO. Actually getting you shut down is more complicated, as I've tryed to type my response 4-5 times now and I don't feel I can convey my thoughts well enough via post.