Slashdot Mirror
Politician Takes Enlightened Stance on Gaming
GamePolitics is reporting that one Australian would-be politician is taking an enlightened stance on gaming in general, and especially with respect to censorship. "Censorship is odious because it removes community choice. Censorship says that the thought is the action; that the common person can't distinguish between depiction and actuality... Censorship says, 'Let me decide who talks.' And games are talking. They're talking very loudly, to a great many people, in strong and clear voices. They're speaking in places that have never read a newspaper and in houses which have never listened to politicians. It's okay to be worried by what games are saying. It's okay to disagree. But it's not okay to stifle those voices. It's not okay to kill the game."
Of course I'll call someone enlightened that agrees with me. If I don't agree with myself, I'm just calling myself stupid... and I try very hard to avoid being stupid.
So yes. Biased. But not unexpected.
It's enlightened because it promotes freedoms rather than restricting them.
Or yesterday's, or tomorrow's.
I don't see why most games can't give users the tools to self filter. At that point, it's the parent's responsibility.
They do. The consoles have parental controls built in. Parents just don't seem to want to bother to use them.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Safe handling of a gun usually excludes the act of shooting towards other people for fun.