Quote Originally Posted by Big D View Post
Offense is certainly unavoidable, hence why there's plenty of "offensive" matter available in every medium. But when it comes to the kinds of material that get banned in situations like this, it's never simply because "someone might get offended if they see it". It's always more serious - the material in question goes beyond mere offense, and actively supports and promotes (or casts in a positive light) something that the overwhelming majority of the population find abhorrent and that the laws finds seriously criminal. To quote a commentator from a recent law reform, it's about restricting the ability to promote or propagate ideas that simply have no place in a civilised society.
I consider a society which censors to be uncivilized.

That aside, my statement ought to amply highlight the point that what constitutes civilized varies. There are some who think the fact that divorce is permitted is the height of moral degradation. There are some (Like me) who really don't give a crap about anything like this just as long as everyone involved is involved through their own choice to be.

If defamation (libel and slander) are to remain illegal, then why shouldn't other subjects be open to censorship? After all, some might say, defamation is just lies. Lies that can be countered with rebuttals. Why should one person's reputation or sensibilities affect what can be said by every other person in the country?
Because it is about reputation, and reputation is something that can be held onto when everything else is gone. Mud sticks, sadly, and as long as it does reputation demands legal protection. Although I could see the case made that if you legalize slander and libel, people will have to learn to think more critically about accusations because they know false ones could be made.

The censorship regimes in place just allow society to say, "you're a sick smurf for wanting to turn something like that into a game, and an even sicker smurf for trying to market it." It's a sign of a very impotent society when 'anything goes' and any idea, no matter how repugnant, has to be treated as equally valid and equally valuable to avoid offending depraved degenerates.
Whoa, whoa, nobody's saying anything about this stuff being equal. I didn't care much for Manhunt. I found some of it quite unpleasant, actually. As I said above, I don't think the industry would be a lesser place if it hadn't been made. I do not attach much value to these games. But the value I attach to games does not have any bearing on what is and is not permissable. Equality before the law doesn't mean equality in any other sense whatsoever.

I claim it to be a sign of a very rich, healthy, strong society when anything goes and any idea, no matter how repugnant, has to be treated as worthy of being aired and published, even if it's disgusting and will never take off. Especially if it's offensive and unpleasant, in fact. A weak society cannot suffer the presence of such things, a strong society can.

Quote Originally Posted by Big D View Post
What if it's not intended to 'ruin someone's life'? Suppose it's just for fun - or better yet, for profit? People make money off lies all the time. Good, wholesome business practice, some would say. Just because some people use defamation for personal vengeance shouldn't incriminate anyone who uses it with a less-personal motive like profiteering.
Motive isn't really relevant when it comes to defamation (Or most other crimes, for that matter). It might impact sentencing a bit, but not much and it won't do anything more. Just the same as this game - motive isn't important much. Even if Rockstar WANT to encourage violence, that's their right as far as I'm concerned. Free speech is pretty much an absolute. I'm wary even of the clauses I state earlier.