That Penny Arcade Controversy

[Janx]

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.

That's OK. This isn't one of those threads where I can win with some better logic or morality.

My gut says that the more force you exert against my fictional site and its terrible watermelon hating message that a line is crossed from expressing an opposing view to trying to eradicate my message.

If infringement isn't the right word as Freedom of Speech may not be used correctly, it is still pushing the boundary of wrongness.

A better example might be that guy in the news again who wants to burn some books that other people strenuously object to.

Is he hurting anybody? Not in any physical or financial way (though he might be causing pollution). The emotional harm is mostly because some people choose to put value on the books of a specific title.

Is it a good thing to burn the books? Not really. He's deliberately trying to insult people.

Does he have a right to burn books he owns (barring the pollution issue)? I think so, and apparently others begrudgingly agree.

Is it right to try to stop him? I don't think so.

Any form of intimidation, coercion or persuasion to stop him is interfering with his free will and free action.

Does somebody have to right to be accidentally insulting (ex. PA's initial comic)?
Does somebody have the right to be deliberately insulting (ex PA's t-shirt, or this book burny guy)?
Do you have the right to try to stop a deliberate insult?

I think we get a collision when my will is in conflict with your will.

Why does your will get to override mine?
Are there conditions on when that is OK?

 

[DMZ2112]

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.

The topic of con-goers cosplaying as Nazi soldiers came up a while back, and I had a similar thought. It's not the dressing up as Nazis that ought to be outlawed; it ought to be against the rules for these morons to go about 99% of their lives WITHOUT some kind of identifying mark.

Seriously, as kids, how often were we told to put ourselves in the other person's shoes before doing something to them? We could all do with a little more empathy, but failing that I'm officially endorsing forehead branding.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If infringement isn't the right word as Freedom of Speech may not be used correctly, it is still pushing the boundary of wrongness.

Agreed.

A better example might be that guy in the news again who wants to burn some books that other people strenuously object to.

Is he hurting anybody? Not in any physical or financial way (though he might be causing pollution). The emotional harm is mostly because some people choose to put value on the books of a specific title.

That's debatable. Certainly many people place a direct causal link between his actions and violence.

Why does your will get to override mine?
Are there conditions on when that is OK?

Yes. Child pornography is a good example. Snuff films another. Yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater. And if this man's actions can be linked directly to the safety risk of soldiers and civilians overseas there may be a case to treat his actions like any of these.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Point. I overstated the case. Apparently the mistake was paying attention to the free speech they claim to support but seemingly really don't like when it's pointed in their direction. And yet they roll over like kittens when lawyers are pointed their way as in the case of Strawberry Shortcake.

As for Janx' point about rallying against the product, making the point in no uncertain terms that that is not acceptable anywhere is an integral part of genuinely free speech. What is acceptable and what is seen as uncivilised behaviour changes over time - and objecting to what you see as uncivilised behaviour is necessary - because if people are cheering it (as they were) and not opposing it then it is allowed to become mainstream.

 

[jimtillman]

Without going into the fine details of the non-grandma-friendly comic strip which started this whole thing, you might be aware of the Penny Arcade controversy that's been everywhere this week. Without going into too many details, it involves a several-year-old comic strip with an inappropriate joke, and the way criticism of that was handled; and how the issue was resurrected this week at PAX Prime due to another comment about the whole affair. Well, here's the apology/clarification. I've seen a number of game publishers and attendees stating that they intend to boycott PAX until this issue is resolved.

I personally feel that the dickwolf strip is hysterical and very true if you play it stright with mmo world ethics

though the controversy could have been mitigated by a little more diplomacy in there reply's to people that , misunderstood the joke or got the joke but were still offended.

 

[Neonchameleon]

My gut says that the more force you exert against my fictional site and its terrible watermelon hating message that a line is crossed from expressing an opposing view to trying to eradicate my message.

Who personally is your watermelon hating message hurting? How does it lead to harm.

A better example might be that guy in the news again who wants to burn some books that other people strenuously object to.

Is he hurting anybody? Not in any physical or financial way (though he might be causing pollution). The emotional harm is mostly because some people choose to put value on the books of a specific title.

Is it a good thing to burn the books? Not really. He's deliberately trying to insult people.

Does he have a right to burn books he owns (barring the pollution issue)? I think so, and apparently others begrudgingly agree.

Is it right to try to stop him? I don't think so.

On the other hand it is right to say "That guy burns books for bad reasons. I will not buy anything from him and I will not buy from anyone who advertises on his site." That too is free speech.

Any form of intimidation, coercion or persuasion to stop him is interfering with his free will and free action.

I await the information that legions of hackers tried to erase Penny Arcade from the internet.

Does somebody have to right to be accidentally insulting (ex. PA's initial comic)?

This is not in dispute.

Does somebody have the right to be deliberately insulting (ex PA's t-shirt, or this book burny guy)?

This is not in dispute. The question is "If someone is deliberately insulting are people allowed to say so? And are they allowed to treat that person differently because they are being deliberately insulting?"

Do you have the right to try to stop a deliberate insult?

This is not relevant. No one was trying to stop the deliberate insult because it had already happened. They were trying to make the insult lead to consequences. They were taking their right to be insulted and using it. Returning speech with more speech. Speech pointing out how the rape-monster T-shirts were vile. How they upset people. And how they would not have anything to do with people who thought that that sort of behaviour was acceptable.

Why do you think "I will not give money to people who associate themselves with rape monsters and by associating yourself with a rape monster you are going down in my estimation" either isn't speech or is speech that should be banned?

Freedom of speech means freedom of speech. That includes the right to reply.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And while I'm at it, the clarification of what he now thinks about the whole fiasco is good - and I'll even agree that the original piece is one of their better strips and there was no malice in it at all. Live interviews are a minefield.

 

[Cadence]

These are both more tech than gaming, but I probably paid more attention to both of them this week than I usually would have because of thinking about this thread (they might just have gotten buried under all the other things on FB and google news respectively):

https://www.usenix.org/blog/my-daughters-high-school-programming-teacher
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...-from-years-of-tech-conference-sexism/279459/

 

[scourger]

Truck bed art man needs to be pulled over early and often by the police.

 

[Umbran]

Is it a good thing to burn the books? Not really. He's deliberately trying to insult people.

Does he have a right to burn books he owns (barring the pollution issue)? I think so, and apparently others begrudgingly agree.

Is it right to try to stop him? I don't think so.

A large part of my job on EN World is stopping folks from (often deliberately) insulting other folks, at least within the sphere of this site. Am I wrong to do so?

I expect you'll say, "No, because your actions are limited to one website, and the users agree to abide by rules." Which is fine. The functional bits are that a specific area/community and a social contract are involved.

Well, then we get into an argument of where to draw lines. Certainly, there's an implicit social contract between you and members of your community concerning behavior and how you treat each other. But we have an issue about the community. This website is a community. But so is your neighborhood, your town, your county, your state, and your nation. At what point of scale does it shift from being acceptable to stop insults, to not acceptable?