That Penny Arcade Controversy

[mythago]

Bagpuss, now I am confused. Who is saying that the "Sixth Slave" comic or the T-shirts were "censorship"? And what exactly is the "censorship" here? Because it sure seems like that term is being used to mean "any criticism of my beloved webcomic".

Janx, I thought the issue was that the original comic was NOT joking about rape (as the later comic clarified); it was mocking the amorality of certain games' quest systems. When did the story become that they were in fact trying to joke about rape all along?


ETA: scourger, other than perhaps in a moral sense, I'm not sure that's true. PA has enough popularity and influence that they can do pretty much as they like; their fan base will make excuses for them (to the point of ignoring or actually inverting facts) and the industry will continue to bow to their influence.

 

[Cadence]

Telling a joke about something horrible happening to a fictitious character is not the same as condoning horrible things happening to real people.

The human race has been telling jokes about horrible things happening to fictitious people since the invention of the joke.

Barring jokes about Christa McAuliffe having dandruff, those jokes aren't about and aren't directed at people who suffered horrible things.

Some people can't seem to separate that. Those people are ruining things for the rest of us.

And for others it appears to be mentioning rape in a context they don't like.

Certainly, pretty much anything negative could set someone off - the Pony incident in Seinfeld, an infidelity joke for someone who just found out their partner has been, dead baby jokes for people who lost an infant, "drink the kool-aid" for someone who had a relative at Jonestown, etc... And, given the number of ways horrible things happen to people in the world it could mean the end of jokes in general if anything that might negatively touch an audience member had to be avoided.

I'm guessing people reacting badly to having personally horrible things brought up is at least as old as the joke. And so what happens when a joke you tell affects a person for whom the horrible thing is a raw personal issue?

One approach could be to either publicly or privately say something like: "We weren't trying to mock <insert issue>. We were simply using it as an example of something horrible, because an example of something horrible was required to make our point. We are very sorry it touched on your personal experience, that was not our intent."

A second approach could be to ignore the reaction.

A third approach could be to deliberately start mocking groups for whom it was an intensely horrible personal issue.

Choosing door number three seems like asking for one's things to be ruined.

 

[SkidAce]

You would be hard pressed indeed to find a joke that DIDN'T involve someone else's misfortune.

Not condoning anything...most people have a natural instinct to know where the line has been crossed (imo).


So stop and think about the last thing you laughed at. Unless it was a sheer laugh of joy at the smile on a baby's face, it probably was at another's expense.

Like everything else in this world, its a matter of degree.

 

[Bagpuss]

Regardless - saying, "I don't like what you said, and here's why..." is *NOT* censorship.

Agreed. So long as that's is as far as you go. But even that might be enough for a person to self-censor in future, and that may or may not be a desirable result.

 

[scourger]

ETA: scourger, other than perhaps in a moral sense, I'm not sure that's true. PA has enough popularity and influence that they can do pretty much as they like; their fan base will make excuses for them (to the point of ignoring or actually inverting facts) and the industry will continue to bow to their influence.

It seems that the tempest in the teapot is now boiling over into the PAX show(s) which can't be good for that business.

 

[Bagpuss]

[MENTION=3019]mythago[/MENTION] I don't really think censorship is really the main issue here, I was just pointing out censorship doesn't need to be by a government agency, and that factions on both sides of this issue would like to silence the opposition, rather than have the debate continue.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Censorship has many forms, government censorship is only one case (private institutions and individuals can also censor stuff).

Censorship- legally speaking- is only when speech is illegally suppressed via government power. It is both unconstitutional and- according to many legal theorists- a violation of human rights. When speech is suppressed via internal institutunal power or by a person, it is properly called redacting or the like. It may even be suppressive and illegal. But it is not "censorship".

Using the term imprecisely muddies the water and robs the term of its power.

 

[CAFRedblade]

Regarding the issue, here is "Gabe" post this week on it:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2013/09/04/some-clarification


Here is an article related to the topic, but not speaking directly to the PAX Prime event, but to a prior event surrounding "Gabe" and a furor that took place just before the new PAX AUS that took place about a month ago.
http://www.gamingexcellence.com/features/a-possibly-surprising-defense-of-mike-krahulik

To me this helps set a rekindled stage for the outrage regarding his comments during the interview this past Monday at PAX Prime, which I still need to watch via Twitch TV.
http://www.twitch.tv/pax/profile/pastBroadcasts
Watch for yourself here, Day 4.

And here is a post from MC Frontalot who is a good friend of the guys at PA and his perspective on the ordeal.
https://plus.google.com/106362895997604280818/posts/94KfgrA75JH
hopefully those without Google+ accounts can view it without issue.

I personally enjoy alot of what PA does, their humour approximates my own. And they do alot of community good. But like anything, people make mistakes, and things (verbiage, phrasing) can be misconstrued and taken out of context. In this situation, a combination of events has blown things out of proportion. I feel there is alot of screaming drowning out those making valid points on both sides. At this point I think "Gabe"'s clarification is about all he can do without drawing more wrath.

 

[Morrus]

Censorship- legally speaking- is only when speech is illegally suppressed via government power. It is both unconstitutional and- according to many legal theorists- a violation of human rights. When speech is suppressed via internal institutunal power or by a person, it is properly called redacting or the like. It may even be suppressive and illegal. But it is not "censorship".

Using the term imprecisely muddies the water and robs the term of its power.

It's not just a legal term. It's an English word, though it predates that (of course). You'll probably recall the tale with Socrates?

It can be legal; it can be performed by corporations or individuals. It can even be beneficial (child pornography being an obvious example).

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And 9 times out of 10, when people are talking censorship in the broadest sense, they are talking about someone curtailing their right to free expression.

But when it happens without government force behind it- say, of a reporter by a media outlet- they are probably in a situation where they are disagreeing about an editorial decision. That body has the legal right to curtail the speech in accord with its function and its position as an employer of persons who produce journalistic input. And the reporter can go elsewhere.

And "other controlling bodies" usually involves an arm of the state- FCC, school, prison...