Slashdot Mirror
Church Threatens Legal Action Over Sony Game
An anonymous reader writes "The Church of England is threatening legal action against Sony over the game Resistance: Fall of Man. The game features a shootout in Manchester Cathedral, and the Church claims that Sony did not ask permission to use the interior of the Cathedral in the game. The Bishop of Manchester called the game 'highly irresponsible' due to the history of gun crime in the city. Sony denies the charge — a spokesman said 'We believe we have sought and received all permissions necessary for the creation of the game.'"
First off, I am Christian and do not care for Sony.
The game is art. There should be no legal repercussions for Sony choosing to tell a story a certain way. If you do not like it, do not buy it. Protest if you want, so others know you do not like it. But, every adult should be free to choose for themselves if shooting in a church is inappropriate in a game.
Seriously, asking slashdot users to make a choice between Sony or religion?
It's just not a choice you can ask slashdot users to make, it's like one of those "If you had two kids and they were in a burning building and could only save one, which would you save?" kind of questions.
I've no idea why, but this is the lead front page story on news.bbc.co.uk, and was the lead news story on the last summary I saw on TV! I can't even figure what what law the church could sue Sony with in the UK.
This is one article in which I'll be irritated if someone tries to make it a religious thing. IANAC (I am not a Christian), but this is really no different than any other, non-Christian group complaining about the use of their building for an ostensibly violent purpose. Whether or not it's right for this Church to go after Sony, it would be nice if this weren't turned into a religious issue.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
Gamertag: WyleType
>When it comes to opposing gun safety laws or gun control, the Bible is invoked without hesitation.
You are mixing up your countries. This is not America, this is a Church of England Cathedral. The Church of England is very much in favour of gun control, indeed as an Anglican myself I think one of the few great things Tony Blair did was outlaw handguns entirely (even the Olympic shooting team have to train abroad). Those who live by the gun, die by the gun.
My little Linux and tech blog
> Sony are chattering in fear at the thought of ... the C of E
I am not sure, the C of E could threaten to show off the Nintendo Wii in 27,000 churches next Sunday.
My little Linux and tech blog
Amen and pass the nunchucks.
Gamertag: WyleType
There are a number of problems here that Sony just haven't thought about:
.Why use a real church in a city with a high gun crime problem, in a FPS?
1. Why use a real church?
2. Why use a real church in a city with a high gun crime problem?
3
4. Why use a real church in a city with a high gun crime problem, in a FPS, without asking permission?
Obviously they just aren't thinking straight. I'm quite amazed that a big company like Sony just didn't think things through. What did they expect to happen? The church to welcome virtual gunmen through their doors with open arms after they've spent so many years dealing with real gun-related deaths?
Get real Sony, we all know exactly how it would've played out if a game went on a spree round your offices...
Catholic Excommunication. ;)
FTA:
Manchester Cathedral is private property, correct? It belongs to the Church of England? If so, and if you were going to show the interior of Manchester Cathedral (or any private property) in Doctor Who (or any television show or movie) I believe you have to seek permission of the property owner. Of course, if Sony were publishing a novel about it, I doubt the Church of England would care much -- but Sony has specifically aligned the game with video-based works rather than written fiction.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
In the real world you ask permission before you draw others into your own dark fantasies. If the Bishop doesn't want his church used as a stage-set in their game then Sony should respect that decision.
n the real world you ask permission before you draw others into your own dark fantasies. If the Bishop doesn't want his church used as a stage-set in their game then Sony should respect that decision. Such permission is nice-ity, NOT a requirement here. They did no filming within the actual church. They modeled a virtual set on the real church and all activity occurred to and within the virtual copy. The Cathedral is now WAY past any copyrights that can protect it's architectural design, so really they have no case. They might have a case if this was a film set within the church, as that would be use of the private property, but obviously being a video game it isn't.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
In the real world you ask permission before you draw others into your own dark fantasies.
... ...
;)
Ever played with yourself thinking all the *inappropriate* thoughts about that girl (boy) in your class?
Ever asked them if you can do "it" beforehand?
I guess the definition of "dark" is left to be decided, but it is not as clear-cut as you are suggesting...
Paul B.
How many school shootings have you heard about in the US? And how many school shootings have you heard of in countries where handguns are banned?
I haven't played R:FoM, but it's a FPS game, yes? In which you run around a virtual world shooting various critters and such, yes? The key word here is "virtual" -- Unless Sony went through the Cathedral with a camcorder and actually used real footage of the real cathedral in the game, I don't see how they're "using" the cathedral for anything at all.
Would it be illegal if I drew a picture of the inside of the cathedral and posted it online? How 'bout if I carefully modelled in in 3D? And did an animated walkthrough?
The Church of England may own the Cathedral, but do they own the rights to the *appearance* of the Cathedral?
/* "Specialization is for insects." -Heinlein */
I will only speak for myself as a Christian but let's say you got your wish and Christianity had never arisen. The world would be without a lot of hospitals and institutions of higher learning. A lot of hungry people would not have been fed. There would not have been a Mother Teresa. William Wilberforce would probably not have led the fight against slavery in England. Just something to think about.
Riiiiight, because human moral behavior arises from Christianity, doesn't it?
I guess I'll go back to eating babies now...
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
The Cuban Missile Crises was quite possibly the closest we've ever come to a nuclear war. If religion truly is the only thing stopping world peace, tell me, just how did religion cause the Cuban Missile Crises, or the Cold War in general? Or would you like to add economic systems (Capitalism vs. Communism) to another silly little thing you'd like to be a thought crime?
Spoken like someone without a true understanding of the U.S. Second Amendment.
Any government has the potential for corruption on a level that can't be undone through avenues made legal by itself. The entire point of the second amendment is to give the society at large the ability to fix this. Our founding fathers recognized this and added the second amendment to the bill of rights for this very reason. They had, in fact, *just* done this with the then-sovereign government.
for I too am an asshole that believes freedom ends at the point where I don't like what someone does.
nah, the guy with the gun pulls his knife on them, to save bullets.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
A few things:
1. Thanks for doing the research, I hadn't actually looked into it, but I hadn't heard of any school shootings.
2. Only 2 of those are shootings, it would be unreasonable to ban knives, and the explosives were probably illegal anyway.
3. Are there more, or were there only 9 incidents in the last 7 years outside the US? I believe there have been more school shootings within the US during that time frame.
The article seems say that because violence exists where guns are banned, we shouldn't ban guns. That's a ridiculous and valid argument. Banning guns obviously wouldn't stop all violence, but it would likely reduce weapon-based violence and fatalities.
I would guess that a statistical analysis would show a reduction in the number of injuries and fatalities per student where gun control is much more strict.
Take a look at Stalin and Christianity sometime. I'd say Stalin, who stamped out all religion in Russia, and killed tens of millions of people, caused a lot more harm than most wars.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Riiiiight, because human moral behavior arises from Christianity, doesn't it?
No, but in the early days religion was the only group who could or would organize mass humanitarian efforts. Do the words "Red Cross" mean anything to you?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That is not a distinction the church is willing to make. It is a distinction that only the Geek is willing to make. Take the argument one step further and imagine that recognizable 3-D models of the parishioners were created for use as targets.
This story becomes even more ridiculous once you've played Resistance. And I'm from Manchester, originally (although I moved out of the hell-hole to London as soon as I was old enough to get a job). I therefore feel I'm fairly well qualified to comment on this.
From the article, you would guess that Resistance is some kind of GTA game. You know, one of those where you sleep with a hooker then run her over (yes, yes, I know that this isn't how most people play GTA). If this were the case, I could possibly, just about, see where the Church was coming from here, even if I wouldn't agree with them. After all, Manchester does have a fairly serious guns and gangs problem, particularly around the Moss Side area (arguably even worse than London's from the guns point of view, although I understand things have improved somewhat in the last few years). Hell, the school I went to was about a mile from Moss Side, and while the school itself was pretty civilised, being private, you saw some pretty shocking things in the streets around it.
However, Resistance is nothing like GTA. The best description I could come up with would be a blend of a WW2 shooter and Halo. The setting is essentially alternate-world WW2, with many of the human weapons feeling relevant to the period, while the "alien" weapons are deeply Halo-inspired. Most of the game is spent playing through blasted and burned-out city-scapes. This includes the Manchester section, which pops up about 1/4 of the way through the game. For any Englishman with even an ounce of historical knowledge, the appropriate context for the game is obvious; the Blitz (yes, I know Manchester wasn't heavily hit, but I feel the point still stands). If the game is basing itself on any cultural reference points, they aren't the "cruisin' the hood, pimpin' my hoes, shootin' da pigs" cliches of modern gang life, but rather the fear of invasion and the shock of seeing familiar land-marks destroyed that characterised life in the UK's cities during WW2. So while there is still an outstanding question regarding taste, it is a question that could be levelled against every other WW2 shooter out there and a question which seems to have been conclusively answered by now with a resounding "meh".
It's disapppointing that nobody talking about this in the issue appears to have actually played the bloody game. Personally, I loved the UK setting (and very much enjoyed the game itself), particularly as some of the final missions in London see the player passing not a million miles from where I live now.
How is Sony's recreation of the church in a game disrespectful? Is there an option to take a shit on the altar? No really, help me to understand how using a virtual image of a building which holds no power disrespectful? Just because someone recreates a location in a virtual world, it doesn't mean it is disrespectful. Example, I build a building where I hold my wedding ceremony, someone likes it and recreates it in a virtual world. Are they disrespecting my marriage? No! You want disrespect? Imagine someone creating a character named GOD and having another character named Satan rape him. NOW THAT IS DISRESPECT! LOL!!!!!
Ok, first of all, no argument on the low-quality of Wii online play. It sucks, pure and simple. However, this post raises a point that keeps coming up in irritating-fanboy posts like this one and annoying the hell out of me.
Why does it matter how many players an online fps supports? I mean, do you honestly expect reviewers to say "ok, this game has 8 player support, so only 2/5 for it. This game has 32 player support, so it can have 4/5"?
The entire "serious" online competitive fps gaming scene is based around small teams. 1v1, 2v2, 5v5 and so on. The Counter-Strike scene shifted from being 6v6 down to 5v5 because, quite frankly, the smaller matches were more fun. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Tribes 2 and the original BF1942, both of which were large team games, for a while, but ultimately they get very boring quite quickly. The reason? Simple. Getting together an organised team that large is nigh impossible. This means you either content yourself with playing once per month, when you can actually get 16+ people's schedules to align, or else you either play with a team you don't particularly know, or you just play random public games. In which case, you put up with all the tedious crap that comes with it, like half your team camping the B-17 spawn all map so they can fly it round for 2 minutes before crashing while the opposing team completely over-runs you, or shit-heads on your team who break cover so they can hump the face of an enemy corpse. No thanks.
You mention the small team sizes in Gears of War. Fine. It suits Gears perfectly. Gears is a relatively slow-moving, rather "intimate" fps, heavily based around use of cover. If you had 32 people all running around in every direction, the game would rapidly become a big ball of suck. For Gears , 4v4 is more or less exactly right (although the option of 5v5 might have been nice, just because this is fairly standard in many other games and would interfere with teams who usually play other games less).
In short, bigger does not necessarily equal better. After all, remember how much Planetside sucked?
So, given Bush's complete disregard for the constitution, and the lack on interest in Congress for getting rid of him, why haven't americans rvolted yet?
And what makes you think the Second Amendment is about that, as opposed to, say, a perceived need for a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State or something.
Which is useful. If someone has a gun, we can deduce that they intend to commit other crimes. So if anyone has a gun, it's well worth the time of the police to do a little more investigation to see what else he's been planning.
... considering that the UK is about a fiftieth of the size of the US... in the next 20 years or so, I'm sure I'll hear about a school shooting in the UK.
Are you seriuously suggesting that the population of the US is 3 billion!?
How many crimes could have gotten stopped in the UK if the person attacked had a gun?
None. As a crime prevention measure they're about as much use as those cameras.
How many crimes in the US are stopped because the person attacked had a gun?
I don't know. What are the statistics for gun related crime prevention in the US?
Dunno about China, Japan and Argentina, but hand guns are not banned in Germany.
This is such a tired, stupid cliché that I do not even know anymore whether people who say it are serious.
Anyway, since most gun injuries are inflicted by non-outlaws, only outlaws - and the police, obviously - having guns would probably be a good thing.
Since the church was built for public use, and not private... Someone's getting a little tired of being tax exempt , apparently.
Please note that an unwillingness to use a right is no reason to abolish that right. And what makes you think the Second Amendment is about that, as opposed to, say, a perceived need for a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State or something. Well, it does say the *people's* right to arms shall not be abridged..
The bit about the militia is only the reason for the right. The specific right actually granted is the second part of the sentence, and it does not state a limit to a militia.
Doesn't matter whether they are willing to make it or not. It's the very important legal distinction as this isn't a physical property right, it's a intellectual property right which they don't have, pure and simple. The church is simply too old to be covered by copyrights or patents and ineligible to be covered by trademark, and even if it wasn't that would be an extremely shaky case, but again they don't even have that going for them. They can complain, but to threaten legal action is just silly. It has about as much possibility of not getting laughed out of court as the owners of the Louvre have of suing the hundreds of movies and television shows depicting copies of the Mona Lisa.
I am all for real charities and people who actually want to help others, but Mother Teresa purposely expanded suffering and poverty while at the same time hoarding money in order to spend it in ways that glorified herself and her organization. I really wish people would try to find a real altruist to glorify rather than that frightening bitch of a woman.
We are getting a bit off-topic here.
If you have a person who wants to kill then it is very easy for them to come up with some weapon be it guns, knives or explosive. A gun is the easiest to use in that you just point and pull the trigger, however a gun/rifle can be much harder to get hold of in some many countries but it is not impossible. A knife or just about any hand weapon is very easy to obtain and use however its potential killing power is limited to a few victims. Explosives are very easy to use and their killing potential is huge but fortunately they are much harder to obtain but if you know a little about chemistry they are not that difficult to make. The major problem with explosive is that it can kill the user as well but if you have a fanatic who is not afraid to die then then you are going to have a massacre on your hands that makes a shootout looks like a family picnic. Lets not go in the potential of poison and germ warfare.
Unfortunately killers can be quite ingenious in their chose of weapons and it is very difficult to stop them until they are committing or have committed the crime.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
It is an indivudal right. "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" makes it pretty clear. But the reasons for the second amendment are many and varied, and those who approved of it approved for a number of reasons of which protection from the government was just one, not shared by all of them.
People have a right to bear arms that cannot be infringed because the constitution says they have. That was the reasoning behind the overturning of the DC gun ban. You can argue about the reasoning behind it, but it's still a matter of some debate what the intent was. It also doesn't matter. The wording is clear.
Of course, the letter of the law also allows the ownership of weapons of mass destruction. Rather than work around the constitution with handwaving about what the clause actually means, the US should ratify an amendment making it clear.
Well, it does say the *people's* right to arms shall not be abridged..
I know. I didn;t say it didn't.
The bit about the militia is only the reason for the right. The specific right actually granted is the second part of the sentence, and it does not state a limit to a militia
Yes, but where does it say that it is to "[fix] corruption on a level that can't be undone through avenues made legal by itself"?
Three of your examples involve knives and the two gun-related incidents are not in countries where guns are banned. Yes, school violence is everywhere, but the GP asked about school shootings.
at least they're still better than the Catholics who force you to side with terrorism if you like free speech:i vera
http://www.google.com/search?q=church+terrorist+r
All of which is pretty much a moot point given the tools that the US government has at its disposal. I demand the right to bear concealed nukes. That'll even things up.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
This simply shows a sad lack or respect.
Or rather a Church that has so little faith in its message that it has to use a secular governmental court to enforce its views.
Seriously, no one has the right to earn automatic respect. You have the right to freedom of speech and the right to not by physically harmed.
But you do not have the right to not be disrespected.
Otherwise we end up with situations of death threats against Danish newspapers for cartoons of Mohamed.
Freedom of speech means being able to disrespect anyone or anything and be free from harm or punishment by the government. Otherwise many people will use "anti-disrespect laws" to enforce their political views and or religious views onto people who disagree with them.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
If religion truly is the only thing stopping world peace, tell me, just how did religion cause the Cuban Missile Crises, or the Cold War in general?
To be fair, the Russian revolution would have never happened if Tsar had not placed so much belief in his faith with God in the war and kept Rasputin around to faith heal his son. I could go on about the intracity of the Russian Orthodox church and Russian Feudalism which again lead to the Russian Revolution of 1917.
Secondly, without Hitler's campaign into Russia, there might have never been a Russian superpower as we know it. And Hitler's success in Germany was due to a long standing historical anti-semitic view by the German people.
Take the 1096AD German Crusade which rather than going all the way to the Holy Lands to fight infidels, Germans stayed at home and attacked Jewish communities. Although this was not directly a part of the Papacies doing, it was defiantly a part of the German people religious attitudes towards non-Christians that caused this issue.
Not to mention the historical political situation in Germany would have never come about had the religious wars of the 1600-1700s between the Protestants and Catholics which latter resulted in a rather unified Prussia who later became the German empire and lost WWI which later gave rise to Hitler and WWII.
Yes, this is all 6th person removed what if scenarios, but religion is a part of our world and is responsibile for our political situation today. (Especially in the mid-east)
We'd still have a great deal of problems with Nationalism wars, but otherwise we wouldn't see the issues we are in the middle east if everyone just up and stopped believed in their particular man in the sky.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
The verdict...
From http://news.com.com/2100-1023-948441.html
So the handgun ban was introduced in 1997.
"The number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000."
"Gun crime is contributing to a higher number of murders in key areas, even though the national rate of killings this year has fallen. The rate in Scotland has jumped by 20 per cent."
"There has been a 3% climb in gun crime, following a 2% rise the previous year, the figures show."
"GUN crime has almost trebled in London during the past year and is soaring in other British cities, according to Home Office figures"
Source: Wikipedia
Scotland Yard blamed the rise in gun crime not only on the fact that criminals, some as young as 16, are now more willing than ever to settle "trivial disputes" with a gun, but also on the belief that carrying firearms was fashionable..
So, much like the ban on fox hunting ban that Blair's government has rushed and pushed and forced upon us, it has been completely ineffectual. This comes from someone who has never really felt the desire to own a handgun or hunt foxes with dogs but who knows a colossal screw up when he sees it. I look forward to the abortion that is the NHS's new computer system and the complete and utter failure of the proposed ID card, I'm never really happy until my taxes are being spent on things that will never ever work!
I doubt there are many CoE members of the NRA. OR in favour of pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Iran. In fact, they were pretty vocally opposed to the war with Iraq. But why let facts get in the way of a chance to attack Christians.
You do understand that this is Manchester in the UK, don't you? Hardly anyone in the UK has views similar to the NRA, so your comment is way off...
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
I agree entirely... so what's taken them so long to "...water the tree of Liberty"?
The answer: the majority of people (not necessarily yourself) who loudly champion the Second Amendment don't give a damn about the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Failure to enforce separation of Church and State? "Those godless commies are trying to ban God!"
Unreasonable search and seizure? "Well it's only dug dealers, or people accused of being drug dealers, or brown people that had cash on them and -could- have been drug dealers..."
Freedom to assemble? "Why should those gutless protesters be allowed within a mile of the President? They can say whatever they want in the "Free Speech Zone" that's set up for them, far from where anyone can see or hear them so they don't bother anyone."
Free speech? "Seeing my country's flag burned makes me feel bad. We have to outlaw it!"
Habeous Corpus? "Huh?" or "Well, if the government has to take away a little freedom in order to keep me safer, I'm all for it!"
While there are probably ardent supporters of the second amendment that don't echo these beliefs, personal experience and online reading tend to make me believe that as long as it's the freedoms of minorities that are being endangered, or you chant "terror", 9/11, and "everything changed on September 11th", you can do whatever you want and the majority of vocal Second Amendment supports won't care one bit... as long as they get to keep their guns.
I'm not even asking them to literally take up arms; I just want to see one of these "cold dead fingers" types stand up and speak up when they see our liberties being eroded.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
Does anyone else realize the motives in game for "shooting in the church" in the Manchester level? You are wiping out the aliens that had taken the church and were using it as a stronghold to launch attacks against the human race. The player character is sent in to kill all of the alien troops so the surviving humans (esp. local English troops) could take cover there and set up a base of operations. Sony was using that particular church in that particular location as a bastion of safety for a mostly English group of survivors. It would become and icon of protection and victory in the storyline of the game! If anything, I'd think the Church would be proud to have their building defended from harm . . to have civilians and troops rallying within . . . just my opinion, but it sounds like the Church is pointing their finger at Sony for designing a level in which their church was destroyed or sacked or desecrated, but it's the exact opposite!
Compare and contrast with this story. There are some conceptual similarities, at least: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/02/18 39251&from=rss
Grr! Arg!
I honestly can't remember whether the targets had torsos or were round... but you're right... let me put it this way:
.... significantly less violent than most modern professional sporting events.
My assertion does not come from the text itself, but from the history surrounding it. I say that this right exists for violent, forced overthrow of the sovereign government largely because that's exactly what they did right before creating the document. This *was* an armed populace overthrowing a tyrannical state.
How would it not be obvious to these people that the ability to do so is essential, as there is no reason a government can't get to that level of corruption?
Good point there, however my original point still stands as it was more historical (I honesty did not know the Red Cross was in no way from a religous background, I guess the Salvation Army is a better modern example).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is exactly why the story is newsworthy.
Sony, who has in part championed DRM and even installed rootkits to protect their IP now blatantly appropriates someone else's without even so much as a letter asking permission?! Even if you don't belive in copyrights of likeness, Sony clearly does.
Thats the story.
"Simulating violence against its residents against their wishes should not be allowed."
Resistance: Fall of Man is a game about aliens taking over Europe. Unless you're saying that the Anglicans of Manchester are aliens, it doesn't make much sense to describe the game as "simulating violence" against the residents of the Cathedral.
It would also greatly reduce weapon-based math. You don't want us to be even further behind the Chinese, do you?
Please stop stalking me, bro.
or is that farther?
*snortle*
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Injuries != crimes. For example, in Switzerland, there is a direct correlation between availability of handguns and male suicides. Whether there is a causation is anyone's guess, but the correlation is there (sorry, source is in german).
Another example to consider: Break-ins in occupied homes are rare, but a family member unexpectedly coming home late at night is not. I doubt having a gun at home makes your family saver.
On one side you have gun crime, which we punish and should punish more. On the other side you have crimes adverted by legal carry. Carry stems from the right to self defense. That is an individual responsibility with individual liability. The police keep the peace and investigate after the fact.I'm sceptical about the crimes adverted by gun owners. Frankly, I'd prefer not to have wannabe cowboys without proper gun training running around protecting me. Doesn't really make me feel saver.
I have insurances for such things. If somebody wants to rob me, don't risk my life, thank you.
I don't know about the Japanese shrine but it's pretty obvious why Sony wouldn't make an alien blasting game set in Mecca; Muslims would be in the streets burning flags and killing each other in riots. It's simply not worth the hassle. Christians tend to be a bit more civilised, even so it's not like the game is set in the vatican is it? There's a big difference between a cathedral and Mecca. How many Anglicans even know much about this cathedral anyway?
The principle is the same though. You can't give something special status simply because some people consider it sacred. Create the game, release it and let the market decide whether or not it's a good idea. There's absolutely no reason why a church be given special status. It's a lovely building but nothing more.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
It looks like the CoE have seen that Sony is making a few bucks and want to extract their pound of flesh. Hopefully Sony will stand up to this coercion and refuse to give the CoE any "donations" to curb their "outrage".
It looks like the CoE has realized video gams make money and want their pound of flesh. Hopefully Sony will recognize this as the coercion that it is and will refuse to play along.
Gun violence in the USA is not due to the availablity of handguns. That is a fact. Handguns are widely available in Canada, Germany, and many other Westrn nations with far lower rate of handgun violence than the United States. Again, handgun violence in the United States is NOT caused by the availablity of handguns.
Now WHY there is so much violence in the USA is an interesting question. Many people think it is due largely to ethnic tensions within the USA. Think about this for a second: In the UK, most people slavishly trust the police. In the USA, the police have a long history of terrorizing and murdering ethnic minorities. Now if you're a ethnic minority in the USA, why should you give up your firearms and rely on the "protection" of the police?
Which illustrates the point of many other posters. In the USA, the primary reason for owning firearms is not hunting or personal defense against criminals. In the USA, the primary reason for owning firearms is protection from the government, specifically the police. This is why police are so big on banning firearms ownership in America.
As quick pre-counter: Many people say that this function is irrelavent because the US military is so powerful that they could easily crush lightly armed opposition. Tell this to the insurgents in Iraq. Or to the street protestors that successfully stopped the coup in Venezuela. Or recent opposition in Nepal. History and reality strongly support the view that an armed population is far better equipped to resist tyranny.
Or a game mission involved the Yasukuni shrine? Fictionalized versions of these temples appear in anime and various video games. At least the Yasukuni shrine, I'm not sure about the Kiyomizo Temple. No wait, how about Resistance: Mission to Mecca? That'll be a good one to do. Think of the potential market in the Islamic world. Would Muslims buy a FPS with a level that takes place in Mecca? Absolutely, as long as they did not find it offensive. For example, a game that depicted pious religous soldiers defending Mecca from foreign invaders might do well. The "alien science fiction" genre has less play in the Muslim world, so a fantasy scenario with invading djinn (demons) might do better than Resistance. But the Muslim world simply isn't a big market for video games, yet. This simply shows a sad lack or respect. Most of the people who wrote the game are Christians. This particular priest does not set religious standards for all Christians. This isn't offensive to the vast majority to Christians, just this one greedy priest looking for a handout and maybe a little attention.
Who are we to prevent someone from offing themselves if they really want?
Sounds like restricting freedom to me.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
I don't say that often, especially not to people I have never met in real life, but it seems quite clear to me that you're an insensitive asshole.
I happen to know people who suffer or have suffered from mental problems. A former girlfriend of mine tried to kill herself twice. She's no longer ill, and she's glad she wasn't able to do it.
Even if you think "preventing" somebody from committing suicide is "restricting their freedom," that doesn't mean that you have to supply them with everything they need if it comes to it.
Actually, I just wanted to see what you'd say.
It's just that the Libertarian in me hates telling people what do to.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.