Slashdot Mirror


German Interior Ministers Seek Ban On Violent Games

GamePolitics reports that "Germany's 16 Interior Ministers have banded together to ask the Bundestag (Germany's equivalent of Parliament) to ban the production and distribution of violent video games. Moreover, the ministers hope to see this accomplished before Germany's new elections take place on September 27th." Violent games became a national issue in Germany earlier this year after Far Cry 2 was scapegoated for a shooting. Germany-based game developer Crytek could be forced to move or outsource if the ban goes through. Spiegel Online has the original story (Google translation).

222 comments

  1. First Post by hachi-control · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And first to say, the government hatred on freedom of any type has gone too far, and this is a perfect example.

    1. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I admire everyone's knee jerk reaction to defend video games via free speech I think this method of defense is inherently idiotic.

      If someone came up to me and accused me of murder I wouldn't base my case on freedom of privacy. I would hope my lawyer could simply disprove the actual charges against me.

      Fighting these sorts of things largely on free speech seems to imply that that video games are actually responsible for some sort of mayhem but should be protected anyway. They aren't dangerous. They don't pose a public threat and they shouldn't even be charged as such let alone 'allowed' to exist in spite of these accusations.

      People need to educate the voting public that the 12 year old next to them on the laughing and bragging about how he shot a rifle through someone's head yesterday and made it explode isn't a deraged lunatic.

      Video games out of context sound insane and dangerous. This is largely an educational problem which needs a good PR campaign. It's easier to defend something which people understand and like than it is to fight an abstract constitutional battle about the conflict between freedom and public well being.

    2. Re:First Post by bertoelcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Video games can be dangerous, but anything can be used as a weapon. It is hard to inflict physical harm with a nonphysical object thou like a digital download.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    3. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If someone came up to me and accused me of murder I wouldn't base my case on freedom of privacy. I would hope my lawyer could simply disprove the actual charges against me.

      You have it backwards. It would not be your responsibility to disprove anything. It would be the accuser's full burden to PROVE that you have murdered. Unless they can, then you shouldn't have to lift a finger or be inconvenienced by it.

    4. Re:First Post by KDR_11k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hell, even if videogames DO cause those murders, that's still several orders of magnitude less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol, neither of which is banned. You can probably find food products that kill more people per year than shooting rampages do. Also they're singling out videogames. Why not movies, books (I hear religious texts have inspired a lot of violence, those really shouldn't be in people's hands), music and maybe news reports about violence? Easy: Because these politicians already subject themselves to that kind of stuff and realize it's not a prolem (or if it was wouldn't want to declare themselves psychos).

      This is a completely ridiculous pile of bullshit. Shooting rampages are so rare and cause so few deaths that special legislation is not warranted against such a broad subject as videogames even if it were at fault (last time one happened the father got tried for severely lacking firearm safety and of course the kids in question are always in a situation where they get treated like dirt by everyone else anyway).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    5. Re:First Post by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have it backwards. It would not be your responsibility to disprove anything. It would be the accuser's full burden to PROVE that you have murdered. Unless they can, then you shouldn't have to lift a finger or be inconvenienced by it.

      That is where the metaphor breaks down, as there is no such burden in the court of public opinion, and public opinion unchecked causes these things. If we ignore it and do nothing to correct people who for some reason think there is a proven link between violent videogames and actual violence, their elected officials aren't going to say "no, sorry, prove it."

    6. Re:First Post by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hell, even if videogames DO cause those murders, that's still several orders of magnitude less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol, neither of which is banned

      And ALL of which have big powerful industries behind them. We're talking about videogames like they're endangered. There is huge industry with lobbyists on our side. And anyway, senior citizens who think games are the devil are dying everyday, while kids who grew up playing games are reaching voting ages every day. Momentum and lobbyist money, if not organization and self-righteousness, are on our side, we don't need to panic every time some idiot government official says something stupid about videogames.

      Not to say "Let's not worry about it" lets just keep some perspective that these things aren't gaining much steam.

    7. Re:First Post by julesh · · Score: 1

      If someone came up to me and accused me of murder I wouldn't base my case on freedom of privacy. I would hope my lawyer could simply disprove the actual charges against me.

      If your legal rights to privacy had been violated, I would expect your lawyer to use this to try to prevent evidence resulting from those violations being used against you. This is standard legal practice, and is the basic reason why such things as the necessity for search warrants actually work.

      Fighting these sorts of things largely on free speech seems to imply that that video games are actually responsible for some sort of mayhem but should be protected anyway. They aren't dangerous. They don't pose a public threat and they shouldn't even be charged as such let alone 'allowed' to exist in spite of these accusations.

      Which is an important point, because freedom of speech doesn't trump public safety. Basically, at least here in the EU, legislators are permitted to make exceptions to free speech as long as there are clear public interest grounds in doing so ("necessary in a democratic society [...] for the protection of public safety" being I think the phrasing involved here). So, yes, free speech isn't an automatic win in this case: we need to show, conclusively, that there isn't a (serious) public safety issue here.

    8. Re:First Post by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      And ALL of which have big powerful industries behind them. We're talking about videogames like they're endangered. There is huge industry with lobbyists on our side.

      A bunch of loonies already tried this kind of thing with role playing games a few years ago. Those didn't really have a huge industry behind them and still came out ok.

      On the other hand the political atmosphere was quite a bit less hysterical back then (no "think of the children" meme for one). Nowadays it seems that anything remotely suspicious or potentially dangerous ought to be banned for the general well being of the peons. It's so nice that we don't have to think for ourselves any more. It was such a chore !

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    9. Re:First Post by mpe · · Score: 1

      Nowadays it seems that anything remotely suspicious or potentially dangerous ought to be banned for the general well being of the peons.

      Except that it's not "everything". Otherwise they'd wind up banning themselves PDQ :)

    10. Re:First Post by mpe · · Score: 1

      Basically, at least here in the EU, legislators are permitted to make exceptions to free speech as long as there are clear public interest grounds in doing so ("necessary in a democratic society [...] for the protection of public safety" being I think the phrasing involved here). So, yes, free speech isn't an automatic win in this case: we need to show, conclusively, that there isn't a (serious) public safety issue here.

      Which would require proving a negative. Makes far more sense if those claiming there is such an issue have to prove their case.

    11. Re:First Post by Nyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe someone should point out the lack of video games didn't keep the Germans from oppressing most of europe during the first half of the 1900's.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    12. Re:First Post by selven · · Score: 1

      A government cannot "allow" anything, just like I can't "allow" you to enter your own house. By default we have the right to do whatever we want, and the only thing a government can do is forbid something.

    13. Re:First Post by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you think racism goes away when we're all one big happy color, with all the infidels weeded out, well, I've got new for you, you're missing it big time. Don't you see, first you kill off all the other races, then you start killing off all the other religions, then you start killing off the left-handed people, then you start killing off each other over the length of your crew cuts, until finally there's only one guy left — and no doubt he'll attack the mirror.

      Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

      —Dennis Miller, The Rants

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:First Post by rve · · Score: 1

      People need to educate the voting public that the 12 year old next to them on the laughing and bragging about how he shot a rifle through someone's head yesterday and made it explode isn't a deraged lunatic.

      That is definitely not the kind of game a 12 yr old should be allowed to play.

      Anyway, the root cause of moral panic like this is the fact that most people can't wrap their head around the concept of someone who is not a socially inept adolescent boy playing computer games. Their gut feeling is that games are targeted at 12 yr old boys, and the content of many of these games is not suitable for 12 yr old boys.

      While the latter is true, the former is not. Most gamers are over 18, according to Ars Technica.

      Noone is suggesting a ban on all activities that are unsafe for 12 yr old boys. Driving isn't considered safe for 12 yr old boys, shooting firearms isn't considered safe, drinking beer isn't considered safe, sex isn't considered safe, but for adults we still have a place for these dangerous activities in our societies.

    15. Re:First Post by ENIGMAwastaken · · Score: 1

      Whether or not video games are dangerous (they very well might be. I think the studies are inconclusive in this regard.) is irrelevent.

      We, as free citizens, should be allowed to engage in (reasonably) dangerous activities, activities such as drinking alcohol (Huge in Germany), driving cars (Also huge in Germany), etc.

      This isn't a factual matter but a moral, rights-based matter.

    16. Re:First Post by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      The flaw with this approach is you can't win. For every study that shows "games don't cause violent tendencies in children", the government can produce a study that show games do exactly that. The studies nullify each other, and then the politicians use the populist fear of gaming to win the day.

      If is better to argue that human beings own themselves, and therefore have the right to use their mouths to speak-out whatever ideas they wish, or use their eyes to watch whatever they wish. For the government to argue against that would essentially be endorsing serfdom - that we don't own ourselves or have the right to be free - turning back the clock 400 years to the dark ages.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    17. Re:First Post by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      Fighting these sorts of things largely on free speech seems to imply that that video games are actually responsible for some sort of mayhem

      If someone tells me to stop writing derisive articles about government policy because it is not in the national interest, am I, by appealing to my right to free speech, implying that he is correct? Rather, I think I am arguing that whatever damage I may do, if any, is less than the damage censorship would cause. Likewise, video games might well cause some damage, or at least it would be difficult to prove the never do, under any circumstance. However, an argument appealing to free speech requires the government to demonstrate that the damage they cause, if any, is greater than the damage caused by censoring them. This places the burden of proof on opponents of free speech, where it belongs.

    18. Re:First Post by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      I think if you think in court you have to disprove your guilt, instead of them having to prove it in the first place, you're inherently idiotic too. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    19. Re:First Post by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Why not movies.

      I love a good conspiracy theory so...

      Maybe someone with a bit of cash to throw around behind the scenes of government, perhaps someone with an investment in the movie industry isn't happy about the gradual erosion of movie-spend in favour of game-spend ?

    20. Re:First Post by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Aren't we all sick and tired of someone-in-power trying to make one-size-fits-all rules ?

      Personally, I like to snipe from a safe distance in cod5 but have no desire to injure someone in real life.

      How about we make things we consider to be 'bad' (e.g. murder, acts of physical violence etc) illegal and then allow people to MANAGE THEMSELVES in whatever seems appropriate, based on their own experience of their personal inner-worlds, so that they do not commit the actual acts. It's no good trying to consider every possible precondition in this way and making those illegal too.

      Let's ban milk; every rapist ate a bowl of cereal on the morning of their crimes; therefore milk must go!

      Whilst I'm on a rant.. how about we place a ban on stupid people being elected to office? Why the hell should some guy who can't understand the b asics of the subject he's making laws around be allowed to do so, 'on our behalf' ?

    21. Re:First Post by easyTree · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where would we be today if not for the master race? How many great videogames involve shooting nazis ?

      Wolfenstein 3d ...
      cod5

    22. Re:First Post by TheSambassador · · Score: 2, Informative

      I might add that there seems to be at least some support that violent video games increase "aggression."

      Please note that aggression is a hard thing to define and measure, and that lab settings have used... somewhat odd methods to do so. For example, one study had participants either play a violent video game or a non-violent video game, and then were given the opportunity to add whatever amount of hot sauce to another person's food (who wasn't in the room right then) that they wanted to. They DID find that those in the violent game category put more hot sauce in the food... but is that really aggression?

      It seems obvious that video games don't cause violence... and that is the myth to go after. However, some validresearch has pointed towards increased aggression. Once you get there though, do you ban something that merely increases aggression slightly?

  2. And this is the government... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    we're supposed to respect for their opinions on Scientology?

    1. Re:And this is the government... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned. In this particular case, a few are loonies and a few have good sense. Don't assume it's the same few people in each case.

    2. Re:And this is the government... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The interior ministers are idiots anyway, the federal one is a serious case of wanting to abolish all freedoms for security. I hope the rest of the govt will react to these 16 as they did to the federal one.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:And this is the government... by laron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Control freaks will suffer no other control freaks in their territory.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    4. Re:And this is the government... by ImdatS · · Score: 1

      I doubt that there are anyone in our current government here in Germany with any sense at all: talking about shooting down planes, collecting internet usage data, introducing "stop-signs" in order to "prevent" child pornography, banning violent games, heck they even briefly discussed banning "Gotcha".

      No, seriously, I lost the believe that there is any one person in politics in Germany with any sense at all. They are all "... a bunch of jerks to be put... " - to paraphrase Douglas Adams (rip).

  3. NOOOOO! by genner · · Score: 5, Funny

    If this keeps Crytek from making games it has become the worst kind of tragedy.
    The kind that affects me!

    1. Re:NOOOOO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Crytek doesn't make games as it is, they make tech demos.

    2. Re:NOOOOO! by genner · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Crytek doesn't make games as it is, they make tech demos.

      Yeah but there really cool tech demos.

    3. Re:NOOOOO! by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Where are real cool tech demos? I don't see them.

    4. Re:NOOOOO! by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Upgrade your hardware.

    5. Re:NOOOOO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine's top notch, and I don't see them either.

    6. Re:NOOOOO! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, it will deal a very harsh blow to the German video game industry. Essentially, we have CryTek. And Factor 5-- nope, they first left Germany and then went out of business. Rainbow Ar-- no, they died in the 90s. Okay, Sunflowers and Zuxxez are still alive. And Blue Byte.

      So essentially we have Anno and The Settlers. plus Two Worlds That's two moderately successful series and a rather forgettable game. Gothic doesn't quite count; I don't even know if JowooD is going to have someone develop a fourth game after they scared the original developers away.

      On the other hand we have Crytek, who are internationally reknowned for making a kick-ass engine that generates sales on its own and have pushed out a number of AAA titles. Yeah, we really could stand to lose that. I mean, who wants foreign companies licensing a locally-produced game engine for lots of money? Or a locally-produced game being a hot seller worldwide?


      Of course laws should be more than a business decision but the tenacity with which some German lawmakers keep trying to ban violent video games (violent shows and movies are A-okay, as long as they have an age recommendation) leaves one wonders if they shouldn't invest some time actually reading about the subject (and not just from one source) and thinking about the possible consequences.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    7. Re:NOOOOO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to worry, Crytek said more than once that they'd immediately relocate to another country in case any such law actually passed in Germany.

    8. Re:NOOOOO! by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      I for one would like to suggest they move to Belgium. Our politicians are only slightly less crazy but they're so busy fighting each other over language issues they'll never get around to banning violent games.

      The tax rate might be a bit of a problem though, but less so if you're from Germany I'm sure.

  4. What about a ban... by Criceratops · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... on violent German regimes?

    Or a ban on violently bad singers. That could kill off their Hasselhoff hassle.

    --
    crappy triceratops
    1. Re:What about a ban... by ILoveCrack83 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But let us be honest. The people ruling that country now, do not even know what you are talking about. The whole world needs to grow up instead of looking for a scape goat.

    2. Re:What about a ban... by bertoelcon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The whole world needs to grow up instead of looking for a scape goat.

      Everytime the world tries to grow up in one area it takes a step back in ways we already had correctly. It really just needs a happy medium on all levels.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    3. Re:What about a ban... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I'm for abolishing the position of the minister of the interior, those guys seem to be the source of all censorship efforts.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:What about a ban... by Tokerat · · Score: 1

      ... on violent German regimes?

      If your nation still felt like it needed to save face after one of the most psychotic and destructive people in modern times lead it via propaganda into committing the Holocaust, you might be a little uncomfortable with any media which might possibly have a negative influence on your population, no matter how slight or unproven that chance is.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    5. Re:What about a ban... by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The joke being that the more they restrict freedoms the more they become like they were before. I've read articles in the past of game developers being spit on in germany, Crytek has had it's offices raided in the past (with shotguns in peoples faces). How long will it be before they're being lead to the game developer death camps?

    6. Re:What about a ban... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Or a ban on violently bad singers.

      Already in effect as a Europe-wide policy, which you would know if you watched the Eurovision Song Contest.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    7. Re:What about a ban... by stesch · · Score: 1

      What's a Hasselhoff?

    8. Re:What about a ban... by Tokerat · · Score: 1

      Well, at least they still make good beer.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    9. Re:What about a ban... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      The whole world needs to grow up instead of looking for a scape goat.

      To my mind, vastly more energy and money should be put into educating everyone to the edge of their capacity. It's simply not feasible to have a 'select' (largely self-selected) few dictate the rules to the rest of us and fail laughably to police them. Everyone needs to be self-policing.

      Would true universality of opportunity eliminate the 'need' for cruelty and excessive greed or are these facets of some the humans' character which are unconnected with personal / group need ?

    10. Re:What about a ban... by easyTree · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's a Hasselhoff?

      It's a life-sized gay-looking optional mascot/adornment for trans ams... much favoured by germans, apparently.

    11. Re:What about a ban... by ILoveCrack83 · · Score: 1

      So there are no free lunches in happiness? ;)

  5. Crytek by jgtg32a · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hopefully they do leave Germany one of the things that annoyed me about Crysis is that the Koreans didn't respond to dead bodies. In Crysis you can't move dead bodies because it is against the law or some foolishness in Germany. Instead the bodies just disappeared after a little while

    1. Re:Crytek by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but if they leave Germany, do you really think all the devs are going to follow? They'll end up with an entirely new team making games on the old IP, and it won't be the same.

      Hopefully, the politicians behind this get some sort of backlash from their constituents, and back down.

    2. Re:Crytek by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Hopefully they do leave Germany one of the things that annoyed me about Crysis is that the Koreans didn't respond to dead bodies.

      That is such a surreal quote.

      I thought it had something to do with their last president taking a jump of a cliff and nobody passing any new laws to prevent ex-presidents from committing suicide.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:Crytek by tenco · · Score: 1

      Hopefully they do leave Germany

      I don't know about Crytek, but if I finish my studies in 2-3 years and the situation hasn't changed considerably for the better by then (not just games, there a plenty of other issues too), I'll emigrate. This threshold has been crossed ~1 year ago.

    4. Re:Crytek by jonwil · · Score: 1

      As evidenced by the German Index that restricts the sale of all kinds of media (and has been responsible for self-censorship of all kinds of entertainment media released in germany for decades), either the government doesn't listen to the people on matters of censorship or (more likely), they do listen to the people and (as is so often the case in our modern society), the people with the loudest voice are those in favor of censorship and restrictions.

    5. Re:Crytek by Calmaveth · · Score: 1

      The devs could probably follow (most of them anyway), since they have mostly foreign staff already, and they're spread the company out pretty well now, with five different studios over the world.

    6. Re:Crytek by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      Of course they won't leave Germany, it is just a slow political transformation process. The rules the minister are proposed for Europe at large. The German minister just tests the national ground to stir some debate. In Germany you have public debate, even if it is bullshit.

    7. Re:Crytek by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      Hopefully, the politicians behind this get some sort of backlash from their constituents, and back down.

      There is a way to make this happen tomorrow. The elections for the European parliament are on. There are several parties in Germany who are opposed to this attack on freedom e.g. the FDP and Germany is one of the countries where the Pirate Party is running, too. If you are a German citizen please vote and take this issue in consideration.

    8. Re:Crytek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it would not be difficult to move to another country inside europe; they could move to holland, belgium, france etc. without too much of a legal hassle, and to a city close to the border so that the workers could commute from germany if they really wanted to live in germany. and according to wikipedia, they run development studios in ukraine and korea too, so they might even relocate the development of the problematic titles there.

  6. Crytek.de by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    FUD - there is no word in TFA about Crytek being forced to outsource or similar - you know, banning sales != banning development.
    (Also, Germany produces lots of real world weapons for export only... )

    1. Re:Crytek.de by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      banning sales != banning development.

      True, but banning development == banning development. FTFS:

      .

      [...]ask the Bundestag (Germany's equivalent of Parliament) to ban the production and distribution of violent video games.

    2. Re:Crytek.de by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      (Also, Germany produces lots of real world weapons for export only... )

      Oh, so that's why their army only uses slings and pointy sticks ? I always wondered about that.
      (duh)

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
  7. Godwin's law... by mail2345 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just got proven again with the tags. Is 10 min a new record? Anyway, what do they mean by violent? "Violent" could be twisted into a lot of things.

    1. Re:Godwin's law... by DreamsAreOkToo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Godwin's law just proven again with the tags.

      When somebody calls someone a Nazi because they're restricting something, isn't that just a reference to the Soup Nazi episode of Seinfeld? I mean, I might call the clerk at Borders a book nazi if she yells at me for reading a book for half an hour "for free." I don't really think she's anything like a Nazi. So does this really count as Godwin's law?

      Sorry for being a little off topic.

    2. Re:Godwin's law... by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure there have a been a few articles where even the summary, or the article itself, demonstrates Godwin's Law.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    3. Re:Godwin's law... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      It gets defined by a bunch of old farts who hate freedom even more than kids on their lawn so it's going to be as broad as possible.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:Godwin's law... by Tokerat · · Score: 1
      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    5. Re:Godwin's law... by Anzya · · Score: 1

      Yes that counts as Godwin's law.

      If the clerk also said that she hates you because you are a jew, that you should be killed, that the Aryan should rule the earth (you know, the Swedes, the Danes, the Norwegian and the Indians) and that only those of pure blood should be allowed to read books then you could have called her a book nazi without invoking Godwin's law.

      Calling anyone a nazi when they don't support any of the nazi ideas will make it possible to invoke Godwin's law

      --
      "This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
    6. Re:Godwin's law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Godwin's Law can go suck my Nazi cock!

    7. Re:Godwin's law... by tenco · · Score: 3, Informative

      IMHO this is a lax translation. I'll try an exact one: "for games, which major element of the game's plot is the virtual exercise of realistically depicted acts of homicide or other gruesome or otherwise inhuman violences against human beings"

    8. Re:Godwin's law... by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Godwin's law is inapplicable when we discuss the *German* government. Its right there in the subclauses.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    9. Re:Godwin's law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can violence commited by humans be inhuman?

    10. Re:Godwin's law... by tenco · · Score: 1

      (I can't believe I have to do this...) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inhuman

    11. Re:Godwin's law... by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Godwin's law was made for usenet - a network which has never found a viable way to reduce the influence of trolls and spam. Like any of the other "measures" on usenet this law has also achieved nothing. It's almost exclusively applied to situations where the comparison would be useful, and has no effect otherwise. I think it's time to give this "law" a rest.

  8. Recession...not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hey we're really hurting on the economy, let's ban the idiots that dare run a successful business and bring needed tax revenue in! That'l fix the situation! How dare you try and run a business that may offend people in some way!

    1. Re:Recession...not? by koreaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gay marriage redux?

      In my opinion, it's the same issue. Self-righteous moral assholes trying to interfere with our private lives, to the detriment of everyone affected and sometimes even to everyone not directly affected (by reducing the economy...)

    2. Re:Recession...not? by rob1980 · · Score: 1

      No kidding, this is a travesty against Crytek. We'll have to get the tech demos our systems will never run from someplace else now!

    3. Re:Recession...not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reminds me... I read sometime ago that the porn industry in Los Angeles was suffering and was seeking a $5B bail-out from the government. They said that they contribute billions of dollars to the economy and have a right to be saved, just like the insurance and car companies. What happened to that?

      And what about the very successful tobacco companies? Some governments (notably the US government) are practically running them to the ground with all these smoking restrictions. Since they contribute so much to the economy, they totally do not deserve this treatment, following that logic.

    4. Re:Recession...not? by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Same things with drugs, etc. Really, if the governments of the world would legalize a lot of the trade that is today illegal (Marijuana, Modchips, etc) we would have a lot more tax revenue and despite what everyone says, the world wouldn't collapse. Heck, whenever we make some drugs legal we could cut down majorly on police spending and jail.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    5. Re:Recession...not? by koreaman · · Score: 1

      Very true. Sadly, as long as the (to quote Immortal Technique) "Democrat-Republican Cheech and Chong" are in power, nothing will ever change. At least not here in the U.S.

    6. Re:Recession...not? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Uhh, tobacco companies 'success' is due to their fact that their 'customers' are drug-slaves. They could at least have the decency to push a drug that has a nice high, comedown and doesn't kill people. How the hell is selling tobacco-and-associated-chemicals-in-a-death-stick legal?

    7. Re:Recession...not? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Oh wait, because all the nice drugs are illegal.

  9. Free Speech? Really? Best Defense? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I admire everyone's knee jerk reaction to defend video games via free speech I think this method of defense is inherently idiotic.

    If someone came up to me and accused me of murder I wouldn't base my case on freedom of privacy. I would hope my lawyer could simply disprove the actual charges against me.

    Fighting these sorts of things largely on free speech seems to imply that that video games are actually responsible for some sort of mayhem but should be protected anyway. They aren't dangerous. They don't pose a public threat and they shouldn't even be charged as such let alone 'allowed' to exist in spite of these accusations.

    People need to educate the voting public that the 12 year old next to them on the laughing and bragging about how he shot a rifle through someone's head yesterday and made it explode isn't a deraged lunatic.

    Video games out of context sound insane and dangerous. This is largely an educational problem which needs a good PR campaign. It's easier to defend something which people understand and like than it is to fight an abstract constitutional battle about the conflict between freedom and public well being.

    1. Re:Free Speech? Really? Best Defense? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      People need to educate the voting public that the 12 year old next to them on the laughing and bragging about how he shot a rifle through someone's head yesterday and made it explode isn't a deraged lunatic.

      Oblig.

    2. Re:Free Speech? Really? Best Defense? by fermion · · Score: 1
      It is true that free speech may not be the best defense of video games, but it may be the most effective. Here is why. If the actions of video games and tv shows can incite people to violent acts, then why not the direct statements or commands of radio personalities. This is why we have so much sex and violence on TV and video games. The liberals are generally not going to back massive restrictions of free speech because censorship is not currently the big liberal issue. It may have been, but now liberals have taken on the issue of fairness, which implies balanced free speech. Likewise, conservatives are not going to go for the idea that images and language incites violence because much of the communication system is based on the idea that we can say anything because it is only speech. In this world it is ok for Rush to equate Somali Pirates to American urban youth. It is ok for to hate a group of people and hope they all get sick an die. It is ok for to disrespect the veterans of this countries wars, support a poll tax that the courts found unconstitutional, and support flogging and public executions of the type that was inflicted on Jesus Christ. One might assume she thinks that people who did the later deserve a medal.

      Certainly all those thoughts are legitimately expressed in the United States, even though many of these shows occur at times when young children would be expected to listen. We assume that these are just words, and hearing that gay people should be punished, or that Lutheran doctors might deserve to be murdered are just words and will not effect them. This is the same logic we use to support the distribution of other content that reasonable people might find objectionable. Of course merely being objectionable does not make it subject to regulation. We may not agree that shooting police in a video games is acceptable, or verbally promoting the murder of large groups of people based on superficial characteristics, or limited opposition speech, but that does not mean we can regulate it

      Of course Germany has a history of hate speech escalating to mass murder, so they have different tolerance to such entertainment

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:Free Speech? Really? Best Defense? by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      If someone came up to me and accused me of murder I wouldn't base my case on freedom of privacy. I would hope my lawyer could simply disprove the actual charges against me.

      I would hope so, being as arguing privacy in a murder case is purely idiotic; the two things aren't even related. That said, if their case was based on a confession they tortured out of you I would hope to hell you made very sure your lawyer argued 8th/5th Amendment violations. Vigorously. It wouldn't be the only thing he argued because that's just not how court cases work, but it should undoubtedly be the core of the defense. If people are doing something they're not allowed to do, the merits by which they justify their actions matter very little to whether or not they should be made to stop.

      Fighting these sorts of things largely on free speech seems to imply that that video games are actually responsible for some sort of mayhem but should be protected anyway.

      I disagree. I think it says "mind your own damn business." In a free society, you shouldn't need to defend yourself if you're not doing anything wrong. I don't need to get into 75-page treatises of the psychology of adolescent minds or cite studies regarding prolonged exposure to violence if "I can make it, you can not buy it. Shut the fuck up" is a perfectly valid response. If I'm looking to change those peoples' minds, then maybe I'll do so. If I'm trying to get them off my back, I don't see a reason to waste time and breath making an unnecessary argument that, in all likelihood, will fall on deaf ears anyway.

      The people making these arguments fall into two camps: The ones convinced that they're right and the ones taking advantage of the ones who are convinced that they're right. Which groups' minds are you hoping to change?

      It is a free speech issue, without a doubt. Personally I think it's more important to try to get these people to realize they can't simply run roughshod over anything they disapprove of than specifically defending violent video games.

    4. Re:Free Speech? Really? Best Defense? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm a grown up, the things I read, watch or play are my problem and my problem alone. If they were talking about banning games for kids, we could take another angle and argue over the influence of videogames. I'm an adult, I don't want to be considered like an irresponsible that will go on rampage because he watched Terminator or played Far Cry 2...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    5. Re:Free Speech? Really? Best Defense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't need to get into 75-page treatises of the psychology of adolescent minds or cite studies regarding prolonged exposure to violence if "I can make it, you can not buy it. Shut the fuck up" is a perfectly valid response.

      No, thats an unhelpful response as it does nothing to convince anyone that exposure to violence is not having a desensitising effect on the minds. You need to learn how to think.

  10. People don't want to believe in bad people by DreamsAreOkToo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People don't want to believe in bad people. Lets face it, some people are just rotten. It wasn't video games, it wasn't the comic books, or the rock music. Maybe something caused it other then nature, but if that's the case, I'm sure it was exposure to a lot of lead or a head injury that damaged a specific portion of the head during early childhood.

    Until we realize that some people are rotten, and everybody is responsible for themselves, we're going to continue to creating stupid laws that make the word a worse place to live in.

    1. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      that sounds like terrorist talk to me...

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by e9th · · Score: 3, Insightful
      People don't want to believe in bad people? This thread is inherently Godwinned, so I can point out that A. Hitler enjoyed popular support until it became evident that the war was lost. People wanted to believe in him, even elected him Chancellor, because he promised them solutions. Yete nobody wanted to analyze what those solutions entailed.

      It wasn't until after the war was over that you couldn't find even a single person who had ever supported him.

    3. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by eiMichael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right, people just come out of the womb stabbing and biting everything in sight. Stop blaming shit on genetics just because it frees you of responsibility for your community. Worst case they have some testosterone production issue that makes them more aggressive, but even that doesn't make them rotten.

      Putting some teenager into murderer/rapist/assault prison for smoking a particular plant is rotten. Having to leave children at home unsupervised because both parents must work just to get paid minimum wage and can't afford proper child care is rotten. Calling other people rotten to free yourself of any responsibility for what happens on this planet is rotten. Grow up.

    4. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misunderstood "don't want to believe in bad people" part.

    5. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by SquirrelsUnite · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More like people don't want to believe in complex problems that require a lot of attention and might not be possible to solve completely. They want simple solutions like banning violent games or installing metal detectors in schools.

      As for lead poisoning or head injuries being a major cause: that's a pretty weird guess. How about constant bullying combined by a (possibly in part genetic) antisocial personality and a tendency towards revenge. With some neglect from their environment these kids might not have the coping mechanisms some others do and violent games show an example for how to handle these situations.

    6. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by e9th · · Score: 1

      You mean that people didn't know that he was a bad person? Mein Kampf was published in 1925. Plenty of time for people to figure out that he wasn't worth believing in. But they wanted to.

    7. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      So, you don't believe people can be developmentally disabled, they're just not educated right when they're kids? Are you stupid or something? If one brain malfunction can be genetic, why in the hell can't another one?

    8. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's assume you're correct in saying some people are just rotten. Now what?

      We need to get a Rotten Detector, then round the rotten people up and let them (pardon the pun) rot in jail. That's certainly better than creating stupid laws!

      *makes quick phone call*

      I just called Brookstone.... the rotten detector is out of stock!

    9. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Kinda like how people won't accept that some children are just born stupid and it's not the fault of the teachers that they can't grasp basic arithmetic. Politicians seem to believe that stupid children are solely the fault of the educational system. They're not, not everybody is born equally capable. Some are just plain dumb and won't learn not to shit in their pants until fifth grade (these days it's apparently considered a sign of high intelligence when a child learned that before entering kindergarten, a decade ago it was seen as mandatory). I regularly hear work stories from a person who works in a kindergarten and the amount of stupidity is seriously increasing.

      Though I wouldn't say the shooters were born rotten, they often grew up in an environment where everybody hates or abuses them which obviously is going to build up pressure and hatred within them. Of course dealing with the real problem is too hard for politicians so they'd ratherban something at random (and then act surprised when the next shooting rampage happens).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    10. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by Anzya · · Score: 1

      Hitler also said that people are good at discerning the small white lies because everyone does it. The big whoppers are much harder because nobody thinks anyone would lie about something like that.

      Oh, and the solutions he promised weren't about genocide. He simply promised a better economy and bringing back Germany to above and beyond what it was before WWI.
      The German people where starting to get desperate after years of oppression due to the surrender conditions after WWI.
      The allies from WWI are also to blame for Hitler being able to take control. By placing all the fault on the Germans you simply repeats the errors of WWI.

      --
      "This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
    11. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by houghi · · Score: 1

      I agree. When I read the proposal to do so, I wanted to kill these banded group. I thought they were bandits for doing so and should be shot. So proposing these bans is clearly dangerous, so they should ban the banded bandits to do the banning.

      (And I must be shot for one of the worst puns in history)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno what happy special world you think you live in... but here in the world most of us see. There are some people who are just assholes, jerks, evil, messed up, and dangerous... And video games didnt do it. Since these people have been around far longer than even electricity.

    13. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by justinlee37 · · Score: 0

      Because it's not a malfunction. You can train pretty much any animal to be violent. I once saw a video of a pigeon that B.F. Skinner had trained to be violent, but only when a green light was on, by dropping food into the cage whenever the pigeon attacked another pigeon while the light was on.

    14. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by justinlee37 · · Score: 0

      Jumping from "video games didn't do it" to "genetics did it" or "those people were dropped on the head" is illogical and distracts us from real problems. It seems more likely that people are made violent through social conditioning; in other words, their parents were violent, or didn't teach them good impulse control.

    15. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're parsing 'believe in' differently from the parent's intent.

    16. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      I've got a solution to your bullying situation, it's the one they used to do back before the complete pussification of our youth, and worked for me back in high school just a few short years ago (I'm 22 in ~16 days).
      Someone is bullying you? Talking shit, pushing you, etc? Turn around, shove him, and if the case is that he was pushing you or something, punch him square in the nose. He won't do it again.

    17. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by SquirrelsUnite · · Score: 1

      I've got a solution to your bullying situation, it's the one they used to do back before the complete pussification of our youth, and worked for me back in high school just a few short years ago (I'm 22 in ~16 days). Someone is bullying you? Talking shit, pushing you, etc? Turn around, shove him, and if the case is that he was pushing you or something, punch him square in the nose. He won't do it again.

      Thanks. For illustrating my point.

    18. Re:People don't want to believe in bad people by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Anecdotes do not data make. You've asserted you can train anyone to be violent. Can you train anyone to NOT be violent, though? And, do they just not behave violently, or do they truly never have any violent thoughts? Chimpanzee troupes wage war on each other for territory... violence is an inherent characteristic in all animals. There is no evidence that you can get that out of people, and there is plenty of evidence that it can be more strongly expressed in some people. Otherwise murder wouldn't have been written about since writing was invented.

  11. Great Economic Move by carlzum · · Score: 1

    In exchange for some pre-election posturing they're willing to eliminate jobs in one of the few growing industries. Not only does it discourage today's game publishers from investing in Germany, they also lose out on the new companies that spring up around the talent they're forcing out of the country.

  12. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Video games out of context sound insane and dangerous

    Mod parent up.
    I've been dealing with this for years and didn't even realize it... 0_o

  13. You know who else... by Pluvius · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You know who else destroyed civil liberties by taking advantage of the paranoid fears of the citizenry?

    I'm referring to the Bush Administration, of course.

    Rob

    1. Re:You know who else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know who else destroyed civil liberties by taking advantage of the paranoid fears of the citizenry?

      I can name quite a few American presidents who curtailed individual liberty. Let us start with John Adams, who enacted the Alien and Sedition Act, restricting the right to free speech..

      Next, let us move on to, I don't know, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, arrested legislators, journalists, etc. that he didn't agree with, and basically acted like a dictator for the duration of the Civil War. He gave us the income tax (then unconstitutional).

      Moving forward in history, we can choose a plethora of presidents. McKinley engaged in a war of conquest and colonization with Spain, resulting in the American occupation of the Philippines and the brutal suppression of its independence movement. Let us not forget the conquest of Guam and Puerto Rico.

      Getting closer to the modern era, we have geniuses like Franklin Roosevelt who packed the courts such that they ruled that a farmer, growing crops on his own farm for his own consumption, selling none of it, can still have Federal regulations apply stipulating all sorts of things about what he can and cannot grow, how much of it, etc. etc.

      Harry Truman started the modern trend of the president going to war without the approval of Congress. He also tried, but thankfully failed, to nationalize all the steel mills.

      I need not mention the abuses of power under Dubya. I would like to add, however, that I don't really see Obama doing anything to repeal the last 8 years' worth of crap.

  14. The True Sad Fact of this by arbiter1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pretty much any game made now days could be considered violent, any game that you use a gun or weapon to attack something else. Hell even C&C could and games in that area since they have you trin to destroy the enemy.

    1. Re:The True Sad Fact of this by DeadPixels · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Show me a game that can't be painted as violent, and I'll show you Solitaire.

    2. Re:The True Sad Fact of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When that guy in solitaire winks at me, I get filled with Homophobic RAGE!

    3. Re:The True Sad Fact of this by wisty · · Score: 1

      Ah, Solitaire. The second biggest waste of times since un-metered internet connections. At least they might ban Minesweeper!

    4. Re:The True Sad Fact of this by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Depends. Most traditional card deck artwork has the King of Hearts committing suicide by impaling himself through the head with his sword. I noticed when testing this that Vista's Solitaire game came with a whole new set of deck themes that doesn't show this (they replaced all the kings weapons with scepters even on the classic deck theme), but the vast majority of Solitaire games will.

      I wonder if Microsoft's removal of the weapons had anything to do with the violence aspect or if it was simply an artwork decision. I kinda suspect the former, because honestly it seems contradictory to me to have a "Classic" artwork them for the cards but then to change up the artwork styles that have been in place for centuries.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    5. Re:The True Sad Fact of this by compro01 · · Score: 1

      I dunno, people can get pretty violent when they get themselves into an unwinnable situation.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    6. Re:The True Sad Fact of this by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

      You were joking but there is actually a movement to ban Minesweeper game -- it allegedly hurts feelings of landmine victims.

  15. Ban games = no more shootings? by DeadPixels · · Score: 1

    I have to wonder how this idea makes sense to any rational person who stops and thinks about it. Ban violent videogames to eliminate violence.

    It's nothing but election-year grandstanding. You see it just about everywhere, and it likely won't be long until politicians in other countries take up equally extreme/ridiculous measures in order to keep their seats.

    1. Re:Ban games = no more shootings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course this works! They also should ban Linux, since it now runs fun and destructive games like World of Goo.

    2. Re:Ban games = no more shootings? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Well of course - playing these games "trains" people to kill others, according to some German politicians. Never mind the fact that Germany has a draft and provides actual training to kill people to every able male in the country. So the reasoning must be: playing with pretend weapons = dangerous and causes violence, training with actual military equipment = completely harmless.

  16. Then make government free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  17. Its almost like they are trying to over compensate by Hohlraum · · Score: 1

    for something. ooooh yeah, that.

  18. fine ban them... by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    ... BUT the if there is another shooting, they have remburse the video game industry for lost sales and revoke the law. after all you can' throw down that video games cause shootings and claim otherwise when another one happens.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  19. Mind Does Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess what - what you think does matter... Unfortunately, as carnivores, extreme violence is normal.. Should ultra-violent video games be banned? no.. regulated, yes. Like p*rn is, er or was..

    Basically, there is nothing to say that our current way of doing things now is stable or leads to desirable results..

    1. Re:Mind Does Matter by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      But they are already regulated like porn, what these idiots want is a complete ban.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:Mind Does Matter by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      What these idiots want is to desperately profile themselves in an election year. They can't outright say "we don't eat babies like $OTHER_PARTY" or they would.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  20. Wrong, next up piracy by meist3r · · Score: 1

    After all where did the shooters get their illegal ideas? Must have been from the evil interwebz ... queue lockdown in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ...

  21. Why not ban TV? by MartinSchou · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not for the violent tv-shows, movies etc ...

    No, I'm not going to go along those lines - that's just adding to the fire of "ban violent [something]", and we haven't seen any good studies showing a link between virtual and real violence.

    However, we HAVE seen how effective TV, radio and movie theaters are in turning a population against others, raising support for horrible behaviour, war ... lots of other stuff.

    It's actually documented in Germany's own history. Yes, I almost Godwin'ed myself, but in this case it's quite relevant, even though it is slightly trollish.

    1. Re:Why not ban TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the politicians need TV to get popular. They don't need video games.

    2. Re:Why not ban TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a lot of people here in Germany who, like me, do not have a TV at home. Unthinkable for some, but it's normal here. Banning TV here will definitely cause a stir, but it won't be as big as it will be in other countries, notably USA and Japan.

      Televisions here are mainly used to watch the news and football. I watch neither, so I don't feel the need to get me one.

  22. They're just bitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because they always get their asses kicked and all the doublya-doublya-two shooters keep reminding them about it. THEY WERE ALL ON VACATION!

  23. Every election the same farce by meist3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Really, this is supposed to be the fabled "democracy" ancient greeks thought up? Oh no, wait. We've transformed that into a PR farce that every four years proves how rotten the people at the top are. Your votes don't matter. They are merely a numeral representation of how much you "don't" have to say. Lies, populism and ignorant phrase flinging wherever you look. None of this will matter AFTER the election that's why everything they tried to introduce lately was meant to be established before voters aren't important again. Look at our ministry of family and health. They neglected their resort for 3 1/2 years and all of a sudden when the election goes into the confrontation phase they start tossing around stuff like "DNS filters" and "address filtering" against alleged child pornography. All of which could be removed through application of existing laws but since they chose to balance the budget by cutting funds to investigators and connecting departments they now have to start flapping their arms REAALLY fast.

    Politicians are lying pricks that are always a couple of decades behind when it comes to reality. Unfortunately this generalization stands to be disproven for all of the major parties in my country. They can't stop anyone from selling these games to me and if they do I'll personally book a cheap ticket to one of our less ridiculous neighboring countries. Other than that I or someone else will sue at the surpreme court that no government can tell an adult tax payer what to watch or what to play. Not unless they give up all their ludicrous make-belief jobs. This will all die down when these shit elections are finally over. Remember: Vote Pirate!

    1. Re:Every election the same farce by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Really, this is supposed to be the fabled "democracy" ancient greeks thought up?

      There were quite a few things different in Greek democracy. One among them was the fact that decisions were taken by direct voting of the assembly of citizens (no representatives). Another was that there was no limit whatsoever on the power of such an assembly - it could vote anything in. In practice, this lead to some interesting side effect - it happened sometimes that a skilled orator could convince the assembly to vote in a particular way on an important issue, and that would go horribly wrong once enacted. In that case, the next assembly could well vote to condemn the same man to death for misleading them...

    2. Re:Every election the same farce by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      Really, this is supposed to be the fabled "democracy" ancient greeks thought up? Oh no, wait. We've transformed that into a PR farce that every four years proves how rotten the people at the top are.

      Democracy worked for the ancient Greeks for a certain period of time purely because, for
      that period of time, the ancient Greeks weren't a degenerate society. They were also
      probably the only human society that has yet existed, which were not degenerate, and they weren't able to maintain that degree of sociological integrity for very long, either.

      Contemporary America, in particular, is an utterly degenerate society. Civic
      responsibility in any form is a completely alien concept. The three primary activities
      engaged in are working probably 14 hours a day, being preoccupied on what Paris Hilton,
      Britney Spears, or "Brangelina," are doing this week, or working on a continually
      worsening obesity problem.

      The system only works if you work the system. Virtually nobody does, and that's why it
      doesn't work. The only people in contemporary politics, for the most part, are those who want power over others. Nobody else really cares.

    3. Re:Every election the same farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Really, this is supposed to be the fabled "democracy" ancient greeks thought up?"

      Not really. My right to own slaves and have sex with preteen boys is yet to be recognized.

      Oh, and how come women are allowed to vote? Or poor people, for that matter...

      Greeks did not come up with what we understand as "democracy" nowadays. Modern understanding of the concept has been a development taking long time to blossom into the current form.

  24. Pointless legislation is pointless. by kheldan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They can't control the production and sales of games OUTSIDE of Germany. People who want them will just order them from elsewhere. What are they going to do, make it ILLEGAL to own games like that? Stupid and pointless. They should spend their time and energy solving REAL problems.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Pointless legislation is pointless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fact: they already have made it illegal to own games like that!

      http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/08/04/german-video-game-laws-explained

    2. Re:Pointless legislation is pointless. by julesh · · Score: 1

      They should spend their time and energy solving REAL problems.

      Yeah. Like banning paintball. Oh, wait.

    3. Re:Pointless legislation is pointless. by icsx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thing is, most games are already censored (no gore, no limbs and bodyparts are replaced with toys in Team Fortress 2) in Germany. Some games you cannot even sell there! For example a dude in Germany cannot buy Wolfenstein 3D from Steam. Now total ban for violent games? Pssh. Talk about overreacting. TV is the biggest source for Violence. Ban it first.

    4. Re:Pointless legislation is pointless. by grumbel · · Score: 1

      No, owning those games is legal, just selling them is outlawed. There are basically three stages of legislation in germany:

      1) USK, a rating organisation like ESRB, but its mandatory.
      2) Indexed, meaning games can get banned form being displayed/advertised/sold in public. You can still buy it if you are 18+, its just a little hard to find a shop selling it, so its not that different from a ESRB AO rating.
      3) Banned, game is not allowed to be sold at all.

    5. Re:Pointless legislation is pointless. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Amusingly, some German games are censored when yold outside Germany. In the strategy game The Nations two of the factions produced cigarillos and booze, respectively, as food. In the States, that had to be changed to lollipops and candy.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    6. Re:Pointless legislation is pointless. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      3) Banned, game is not allowed to be sold at all.

      That one is rarely invoked; most likely when a game shows Nazi symbols (which are highly illegal in Germany). Lately they have become more relaxed so WW2 games are sold here but a well-known banned game is Wolfenstein 3D (back from the "shows a swastika = glorifies the Third Reich" days).

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  25. *yawn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germany is not a computer games-fixated country. More kids here would rather play football than computer games, and the computer gamers don't play violent games exclusively. This proposal therefore affects only a very small minority.

    I guess it's the principle of the matter that's getting into the nerves of many. If they ban violent computer games now, who says they won't ban other things in the future? But really, banning one thing doesn't always lead to a ban on others. As an example, doing the Hitler salute is banned here in Munich since like forever, and that restriction of freedom has not led to other restrictions of freedom.

    1. Re:*yawn* by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      This proposal therefore affects only a very small minority.

      Depends on what you mean with affects. Affects in a way that would prevent them from becoming violent? Yes, in fact I'd say the effect would be almost nil. Affects negatively by denying them entertainment everybody else can get? That would be a fairly significant number, especially with games lately seeming to become more violent anyway and a significant number already getting blocked from release here by the console makers because of the rating.

      The problem here is that it's banning something with almost zero negative effect over a triviality like a school shooting (call me emotionally dead but to me 10 dead people are no less statistics than 10 million and definitely don't warrant emotionally-driven overreactions). It's insane to outlaw things over something as minor as school shootings and it demonstrates how trigger happy these assholes are when it comes to banning things they don't personally do. They act like anything they don't do should not be allowed for anybody. Anyone who differs from the perfect personality scheme (the politician himself) gets bullied and jailed. Meanwhile it's bullying that caused these shootings in first place. This is an outrageous display of ignorance that will sweep entire sectors of the public under the rug if their interests are sufficiently out of line with the ruling elite. At least the Nazis did evil stuff because they were evil, these politicians do evil stuff because they just don't care.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  26. Anonymous Coward. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in a related story, jack thompson has allegedly begun studying german.

  27. Dumb Meets Dumber by westlake · · Score: 1, Troll

    Hey we're really hurting on the economy, let's ban the idiots that dare run a successful business and bring needed tax revenue in!

    The economic argument is a boneheaded tactical blunder.

    It is the argument the tobacco company makes. The pornographer.

    There is no business practice so corrupt and debased that hasn't been defended the same way.

    The economic argument fails on the facts.

    The Wii is the best selling console platform.

    The Wii could all its M rated titles - and it would remain the best selling console platform. The most popular items in Wii. Updated hourly.

    The ultra violent action game doesn't hold that strong a position even in the PC market. The most popular items in PC Games. Updated hourly.

    1. Re:Dumb Meets Dumber by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      The ultra violent action game doesn't hold that strong a position even in the PC market. The most popular items in PC Games. Updated hourly.

      Problem is, the German government's definition of "ultra violent video games" varies from the one most people have. We all know about Beckstein comparing the uncensored version of Counter Strike to child pornography...or the censorship of Half Life (1). And the German rating organization (the USK) is a puppet organization controlled by politicians like that - just take a look at what they do: even a lot of T-rated games are rated 16+ or 18+ in Germany, just because you use a gun to kill your enemies.

      On a semi-related note, has anybody else already noticed how these pesky USK signs on the boxes seem to grow lately? They almost claim a whole quarter of the front for them...well, just another reason why buying games in German or Austrian shops is a very bad idea (which is a bad idea anyways thanks to prices and taxes). Too good that it isn't like that in the USA.

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    2. Re:Dumb Meets Dumber by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Every FPS can be classified as "violent" because violence happens to be the primary means of problem resolution in the game. At the same time, FPSs happen to be the genre most likely to produce a sellable engine as FPSs are the most concerned with graphics and their optimization. If we just go and ban every FPS we do shoot ourselves in the foot - we drive off Crytek, the golden boy of the German gaming industry, and we ensure that nothing like them will come again. (Granted, Crytek is rather internationalized today, likely because we already had this bullshit before.)

      Meanwhile, we also hurt other economies because gamers are as likely to stop playing FPSs as Wolfgang Schäuble is to respect the citizens' right to privacy. We'd just replace 100% of the legitimate sales with filesharing downloads and make the games that much more appealing to impressionable teenagers. Cue the USA getting mad at Germany for not stopping the rampant piracy and Germany being confused over where it suddenly came from.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  28. Germany has a problem with democracy by speedtux · · Score: 4, Informative

    German law is full of such bizarre restrictions on freedom.

    For example, in addition to the usual laws against slander and libel (which have some justification), Germany has laws and penalties for insulting someone, even in private and even if you don't state anything factually wrong.

    Germany also has laws against any speech which might "disturb the public peace" or offend. What's the point of having free speech if you can't offend anybody? Didn't opposition to the monarchy or Hitler offend someone? Didn't Luther's 100 theses nailed to the Catholic church door offend the church?

    There is essentially no anonymous speech, since all communications ports need to be registered and all electronic communications are tracked and logged. Registration, tracking, and surveillance of citizens in Germany seems to be so widespread that people don't even care anymore and just think it's the same way everywhere. People have the attitude that "as long as the government does it, it's OK, at least we aren't like the US, where Google tracks everybody", which is a bizarre view given Germany's history.

    And it's not just the government that does it: some of Germany's biggest corporations have been illegally listening in on employees and customers and even forged communications.

    It has to be said that Germany's government currently appears to be using its powers for benign purposes: policing, anti-terrorism, etc. But if parts of the government were abusing those powers, say to blackmail political opponents, who would know? And you only need to look at the 1930's to see how a progressive and liberal German government can turn into a genocidal regime bent on world conquest.

    Somehow, the idea of "free speech" seems to have gotten lost in the translation after the Western allies laid the foundations for German democracy after WWII.

    1. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow, the idea of "free speech" seems to have gotten lost in the translation after the Western allies laid the foundations for German democracy after WWII.

      The funny thing is that "free speech" was never a part of the German constitution. ("Freedom of opinion" was, but that's a different issue, obviously - more along the lines of "'You have the right to remain silent.' - 'But...' - 'I said you have the right to remain SILENT!'").

      Given that the USA were quite involved in writing Germany's new constitution after WW2, why is that?

      You're right to point out that Germany's not a democracy, but it's important to realise that this is a direct result of the allies' decisions after WW2.

      I think the conclusion that can be drawn from this is that politicians *everywhere* actually hate freedom and free citizens. Unfortunately, I'm less sure what can be done about it. (Yes, yes, we could have a tea party, then take up arms and start a revolutionary war. But honestly, that's not going to happen, just like it's not happening in the USA, the UK, or any other unfree nation these days.)

    2. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by Timosch · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that "free speech" was never a part of the German constitution. "Everybody has the right to freely express and spread his opinion and to inform himself from openly accessible sources." - Article 5, German Constitution.

    3. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by tenco · · Score: 1

      AFAIK "to offend" means "to annoy" and "to insult". So this is just a bad translation. Criticism isn't forbidden, but insults and hate speech are.

    4. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by grumbel · · Score: 1

      The troublesome part is that it continues:

      (2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.

    5. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      German Basic Law. There is no German Constitution, even though there is a German constitution.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    6. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      At least Germany isn't spying on it's own citizens in blatant violation of its own constitution, or in the habit of torturing people, or holding people in jail without trials - even people we know for a fact to be innocent, and insisting that top officials never be held accountable for war crimes.

      The U.S. has a far bigger problem with democracy than Germany does.

    7. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by heeen · · Score: 1

      Care to back this up with some sources?

    8. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      There is essentially no anonymous speech, since all communications ports need to be registered and all electronic communications are tracked and logged.

      By the NSA. I'm not aware of any German agency doing that. Okay, my ISP has to retain who used which IP address for the last couple months. Do you mean that? Or do you mean the push for warrantless wiretapping, which essentially turned into a decade-long legal battle, unlike in the United States?

      Registration, tracking, and surveillance of citizens in Germany seems to be so widespread that people don't even care anymore and just think it's the same way everywhere.

      The United Kingdom is not part of Germany.

      People have the attitude that "as long as the government does it, it's OK, at least we aren't like the US, where Google tracks everybody", which is a bizarre view given Germany's history.

      Which is exactly why Wolfgang Schäuble (the current Minister of the Interior) is all but warred on by privacy advocates, a somewhat recent example being the CCC acquiring one of his fingerprints and publishing it.

      And you only need to look at the 1930's to see how a progressive and liberal German government can turn into a genocidal regime bent on world conquest.

      Thee government at the time was completey unable to make any decisions due to being cluttered with many small warring parties. That's one of the reasons why the NSDAP was so successful with its rhethoric: Half of it was actually right.

      And it's not just the government that does it: some of Germany's biggest corporations have been illegally listening in on employees and customers and even forged communications.

      And got slaughtered by the media and sometimes sued by the employees for it.

      Somehow, the idea of "free speech" seems to have gotten lost in the translation after the Western allies laid the foundations for German democracy after WWII.

      We've always had it, with restrictions (many of which were defined by the Allies themselves). Full-blown free speech like in the USA was never intended to exist here. Since the only people we could complain to about it have nuclear weapons and a "nukes mean no responsibility" attitude I think I'm not going to.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    9. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by speedtux · · Score: 1

      Given that the USA were quite involved in writing Germany's new constitution after WW2, why is that?

      Because the US didn't quite trust Germany after WWII, and for good reason: many Germans had been, after all, Nazis just a few years earlier. Right after WWII, it made sense to place restrictions on free speech; today, it doesn't--in fact, these restrictions are probably more dangerous than helpful now.

      You're right to point out that Germany's not a democracy, but it's important to realise that this is a direct result of the allies' decisions after WW2.

      Well, I think Germany is a democracy, and a fairly good one at that. But I think it's also time for Germany to overcome its past, and that means dealing with free speech like a mature and free democracy, instead of continuing to repress anything that's inconvenient.

    10. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK "to offend" means "to annoy" and "to insult". So this is just a bad translation. Criticism isn't forbidden, but insults and hate speech are.

      Call it what you want, the fact is that many kinds of speech that are legal in the US are illegal in Germany. Furthermore, many kinds of historically significant and important speech are illegal under German law.

      http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beleidigung

      http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beschimpfung_von_Bekenntnissen,_Religionsgesellschaften_und_Weltanschauungsvereinigungen

    11. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by speedtux · · Score: 1

      At least Germany isn't spying on it's own citizens in blatant violation of its own constitution

      How do you know? German laws are weaker in that regard to begin with, and there have been plenty of cases over the last half century.

      or in the habit of torturing people, or holding people in jail without trials - even people we know for a fact to be innocent, and insisting that top officials never be held accountable for war crimes.

      Are you joking? Germany committed such horrendous crimes against humanity in WWII that for decades, the international community simply wasn't willing to let the German military operate independently. These days, the international community might trust the German military again to some degree, but Germans have learned that it is much cheaper and politically expedient to let other nations do their dirty work.

      When Germany actually has a moral choice (Kurnaz, Uighurs, etc.), German democracy fails miserably.

    12. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by speedtux · · Score: 1

      No problem:

      http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beleidigung

      http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beschimpfung_von_Bekenntnissen,_Religionsgesellschaften_und_Weltanschauungsvereinigungen

      Lots of links there, as well as a discussion of how Germany compares to other nations in those regards.

    13. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      How do you know? German laws are weaker in that regard to begin with, and there have been plenty of cases over the last half century...Are you joking? Germany committed such horrendous crimes against humanity in WWII that for decades, the international community simply wasn't willing to let the German military operate independently.

      The obvious context was present day, you twit, not something that was over with by the time our president's mother was 3 years old. And not only are we comparing molehills (Germany banning violent video games) to mountains (torture being official U.S. policy), civil liberties are supposed to be the bedrock for our country, not so with Germany.

    14. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by speedtux · · Score: 1

      We've always had it, with restrictions (many of which were defined by the Allies themselves). Full-blown free speech like in the USA was never intended to exist here.

      Yes, the allies didn't want US-style free speech in Germany; it would have been unwise to have that a few years after WWII with many Nazis still part of German government. But that was a couple of generations ago and the old Nazis are dead.

      Since the only people we could complain to about it have nuclear weapons and a "nukes mean no responsibility" attitude I think I'm not going to.

      There's no need to complain to anybody. WWII has been over for more than 60 years, and Germans are in control of their own destiny again. If Germans want to change their constitution or their laws, they can.

      The question is what Germans will do with this freedom: will Germany revert to strong government and restrictive laws, or will Germany finally face the messy and inconvenient business of democracy?

      This is, what, Germany's third or fourth attempt at democracy?

    15. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by speedtux · · Score: 1

      Make that "with many Nazis still part of German society".

    16. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the allies didn't want US-style free speech in Germany; it would have been unwise to have that a few years after WWII with many Nazis still part of German government. But that was a couple of generations ago and the old Nazis are dead.

      Yeah, but "never allow anything like the Holocaust to happen again" is the central value this country was built upon. Throwing that out would be like the USA tossing the concept of liberty.

      There's no need to complain to anybody. WWII has been over for more than 60 years, and Germans are in control of their own destiny again. If Germans want to change their constitution or their laws, they can.

      But they don't want to. About every single moment between 1945 and ca. 1990 has been spent reinforcing a hatred for our own past - such much so that coming to terms with our past is considered revolutionary and still somewhat controversial in 2009. National pride is something we had to reinvent; it happened just a couple years ago (and many people are still sceptical about it). The result of that conditioning is that national socialism is anathema to us. It is to be avoided at all costs.

      We literally don't see how unlimited free speech can be superior to free speech that doesn't allow Nazi propaganda - the latter has a much higher chance of national socialistic ideas taking root and those are the absolute, ultimate evil.

      It's simply a matter of different core values. The USA were founded upon "we weren't allowed to speak up so now we'll make free speech our highest ideal". Germany was founded upon "we committed incredibly atrocious crimes against humanity; keeping that from happening again is our greatest ideal".

      Don't take that as an argument, for censorship, by the way. It's an argument for a very specific, limited kind of censorship that has to be used with care.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    17. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by tenco · · Score: 1

      You linked only to articles related to insults. And I didn't deny that those are forbidden. I also didn't say that I like it this way. So, what's your point? Have you actually read this articles?

    18. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > German law is full of such bizarre restrictions on freedom.

      That's a bit much exaggerated... Free speech in germany, which you take as an example, may not have the outstandig status as it has in the USA, but it also has a firm constitutional status. The german constitution court has a long tradition of deciding in favour of these constitutional rights and against legislative ambitions of constraints.

      You are right, that (at least since the september of 2001 if not earlier) the legislative and executive powers in germany try to establish more and more "security" laws. They are following a law&order policy, want a powerful state and obviously feel the need of a reaction to every singular event of a security threat, like the amok run in Winnenden, which is the cause of the mentioned request to ban violent games. Of course this is reactionary and the results therefore inconsistent and mostly wrong.

      You are also right, that too many germans don't care what their gouvernment does, yet. But if you look at younger people, especially those, that can handle computers and care about politics, then you'll find a growing number, that are absolutely not agreeing with these direction of politics. Only look at the e-petition against the plans of DNS based blocking against child pornography (instead of enforcing to extinguish the sources of it), where over 100,000 dared to give their name and subscription against an improper mechanism, that would establish a censoring infrastructure. They did this, although they were at the same time arousing suspicion to be supporters of child pornography.

      In my opinion, this initiative to ban violent games is just one fold of an upcoming conflict of generations, with the yet leading and ages ones on the one side, and the not yet old enough on the other side. It also is a democracy problem in so far, as it is made by democratic legitimated men. But I am sure, that it will also be solved in the next maybe ten years. The idea of free speech is very well alive.

    19. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by speedtux · · Score: 1

      The obvious context was present day, you twit, not something that was over with by the time our president's mother was 3 years old.

      I'm talking about present day Germany. Germany isn't behaving well because of any moral superiority, it is behaving well because it still (!) doesn't have much of a choice.

      And in the few cases when Germany could have taken a stance (US prisoner transports, Kurnaz, Uighurs, etc.), German politicians have made the politically convenient but morally wrong choices.

      And not only are we comparing molehills (Germany banning violent video games) to mountains (torture being official U.S. policy)

      I'm not comparing anything at all. What's there even to compare?

      Here we're talking about an entirely different issue, namely free speech. I'm saying that Germany has strong and unusual restrictions on free speech and that those are a bad idea.

      civil liberties are supposed to be the bedrock for our country, not so with Germany.

      Indeed! And I consider that worrisome and something Germans should consider changing. Those restrictions made sense right after WWII, but it's time for Germany to grow up politically now.

    20. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by speedtux · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but "never allow anything like the Holocaust to happen again" is the central value this country was built upon.

      A laudable value, but how should one go about doing that?

      We literally don't see how unlimited free speech can be superior to free speech that doesn't allow Nazi propaganda - the latter has a much higher chance of national socialistic ideas taking root and those are the absolute, ultimate evil.

      If you don't allow Nazi propaganda, Nazis can't be identified, they can't be publicly debated, and they can't be publicly opposed. In any case, the next serious threat to German democracy isn't going to use swastikas or "Mein Kampf" as its symbols.

      But the next threat to German democracy is going to involve restrictions on free speech, blind trust in government decisions, and suppression of public debate, and that makes the ability of the German government to take actions like this so worrisome.

      Don't take that as an argument, for censorship, by the way. It's an argument for a very specific, limited kind of censorship that has to be used with care.

      But it isn't so specific, is it. Germany also prohibits speech that may be offensive to members of different religions, for example. And, as this story shows, politicians can quickly enact politically expedient new restrictions on speech.

    21. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      A laudable value, but how should one go about doing that?

      We went with "make sure everyone can spot them on sight and keep them from gaining new traction".

      If you don't allow Nazi propaganda, Nazis can't be identified, they can't be publicly debated, and they can't be publicly opposed.

      And if you don't legalize murder your soldiers can never defend your country. Turns out that there is something between "total freedom to do whatever you want" and "nothing is allowed at all". You get to see a lot of swastikas and even genuine propaganda material in school; about half of our history lessons (and history is mandatory most of the time) are about Germany ca. 1928-1948. You can even buy, analyze, debate and whatever Mein Kampf if you want to. Publishing it is difficult, though, because copyright was transferred to Bavaria after the war and they're a bit finicky about it; this will end when the book enters public domain in 2015.

      Also, nobody cares what you debate about. As long as you don't glorify the Nazis or say the Holocaust didn't happen.

      But the next threat to German democracy is going to involve restrictions on free speech, blind trust in government decisions, and suppression of public debate, and that makes the ability of the German government to take actions like this so worrisome.

      Someone here actually trusts the government? I mean, besides the government itself? Besides, I still don't see how our free speech would suddenly be restricted in a way that doesn't allow us to criticize the government. We do not have a general censorship here and in fact we see the anti-Nazi restrictions as something distinct from censorship. And we really don't like the idea of being censored.

      But it isn't so specific, is it. Germany also prohibits speech that may be offensive to members of different religions, for example. And, as this story shows, politicians can quickly enact politically expedient new restrictions on speech.

      Actually, the "different religions" thing is connected to the Nazi thing in that the two overlap significantly. And I still don't see how we would go from hate speech to political debate. It's about as likely as the USA imposing limits on political speech on moral grounds.

      Plus, it's an election year and politicians always talk nonsense during election years so people remember who they are. This is just a bunch of politicians wanting to be reelected and pandering to the generation that didn't grow up with video games. They don't even have any weight to throw behind their demands. It's like a bunch of US governors demanding that the president vetoes something.

      The worrisome guy is the man in the wheelchair (Wolfgang Schäuble). He does want to kill off liberties left and right to get back at the people who put him into that wheelchair and he has the power to actually have a chance to do it. These windbags are nowhere near his league.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    22. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by speedtux · · Score: 1

      We went with "make sure everyone can spot them on sight and keep them from gaining new traction".

      Actually, a consequence of these laws is that you cannot "spot them" on sight.

      And if you don't legalize murder your soldiers can never defend your country.

      Don't be so glib. The US legal tradition of free speech goes back many centuries. A lot of smart people have thought about it, and it's based on many legal and historical cases. US-style free speech rules have stood the test of time. German-style restrictions on speech, on the other hand, have a rather checkered history.

      Actually, the "different religions" thing is connected to the Nazi thing in that the two overlap significantly. And I still don't see how we would go from hate speech to political debate.

      Germany doesn't just prohibit "hate speech", it prohibits speech based on whether it may offend particular groups. German restrictions on speech are unusual (even disregarding the specific restrictions on Nazi-related speech).

      It's about as likely as the USA imposing limits on political speech on moral grounds.

      So, you're saying its certain then? The reason Americans enjoy free speech rights is not because the Constitution says so, it's because people constantly fight for them.

      Plus, it's an election year and politicians always talk nonsense during election years so people remember who they are.

      And the fact that these politicians think this helps them politically tells you a lot about German voters, as does the fact that you and others don't seem to think it matters much.

    23. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Actually, a consequence of these laws is that you cannot "spot them" on sight.

      please elaborate. You keep repeating that it's impossible to identify bad people without absolutely free speech, yet you failt to explain why.

      Don't be so glib. The US legal tradition of free speech goes back many centuries.

      And that is relevant to what I said how? I pointed out that it's possible to talk about Nazis without allowing them themselves to talk. To use another analogy: Chemical weapons are illegal to own and there are treaties restricting them on the nation level. Yet we can talk about them and we'd be able to identify them, even though people are not allowed to use them freely. Because knowing something and experiencing something are two different things.

      Germany doesn't just prohibit "hate speech", it prohibits speech based on whether it may offend particular groups.

      Can you point me to the corresponding laws? Right now I only find 185, 166 and 130 StGB.
      185 prohibits insults - however, insults under 185 need to be libellous (the direct translation would be "reputation-violating", so the meaning is that they need to be aimed at damaging the victom's reputation). Merely making a statement someone doesn't agree with doesn't apply.
      166 prohibits the "insulting of denominations, religious communities and ideological communities" but only if the insult occurs "in a way fit to disturb public peace". Again, I can say anything I want about a religion as long as I don't cause an uproar. The paragraph isn't one of our best but it's not quite as restrictive as you make it look like.
      130 prohibits "agitation of the people" and targets (to quote this translation of the StGB) "[w]hoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population", plus people who disseminate/publicly display/offer to people under 18 writings doing the same, plus people who deny the Holocaust. Apart from the last bit that's a pretty average hate speech law and it doesn't cover "might offend". While the USA doesn't have a similar federal law, many states have similar state laws. The Anti-Defamation League has a nice map.

      So, you're saying its certain then? The reason Americans enjoy free speech rights is not because the Constitution says so, it's because people constantly fight for them.

      That's funny, I must've looked somewhere else when they repealed the First Amendment so they could stop people talking about sex.

      And the fact that these politicians think this helps them politically tells you a lot about German voters, as does the fact that you and others don't seem to think it matters much.

      So the Americans are okay with a constitutional amendment denying healthcare benefits to same-sex couples? Because Sarah Palin said she supports it and I didn't see anyone physically attacking her over it. Oh, there was an outrage? Funny, same thing happens over here (on a smaller scale, though, because people aren't quite as touchy about gaming).

      Just because I'm not surprised that politicians are trying everything to profile themselves doesn't mean I just sit there and take it in. I just know that nothing big is going to come out of this one and I care more about the politicians with a lower profile, a real malicious agenda and actual power over what they talk about. Of course this teacup-sized storm doesn't alarm me much; I know it's not going anywhere and won't be talked about once the election's over.

      So I follow the same course of action that sa

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    24. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by speedtux · · Score: 1

      You keep repeating that it's impossible to identify bad people without absolutely free speech, yet you failt to explain why.

      Isn't it obvious? If you make Nazi symbols illegal, many Nazis that would otherwise be wearing them won't be wearing them.

      And that is relevant to what I said how?

      Because you talk about these issues as if the US and German positions were two equally valid, historically proven, and plausible choices. But if you actually look at the history, you'll find that that's not the case.

      185 prohibits insults - however, insults under 185 need to be libellous (the direct translation would be "reputation-violating"

      No, that is incorrect; offenses under paragraph 185 need not be libelous.

      166 prohibits the "insulting of denominations, religious communities and ideological communities" but only if the insult occurs "in a way fit to disturb public peace".

      Yes, like for example cartoons representing the Prophet Mohammed.

      Apart from the last bit that's a pretty average hate speech law and it doesn't cover "might offend".

      Not even close; you're confusing hate crime laws with hate speech laws.

      That's funny, I must've looked somewhere else when they repealed the First Amendment so they could stop people talking about sex.

      Typically German: you think that because it's in the law the matter is settled. In reality, the fact that it's in the Constitution is only the beginning: it takes laws, courts, and police to implement that, and how the boundaries are drawn is a constant struggle.

      So the Americans are okay with a constitutional amendment denying healthcare benefits to same-sex couples?

      I guess a significant fraction of Americans are; why shouldn't they be?

      Because Sarah Palin said she supports it and I didn't see anyone physically attacking her over it.

      Americans don't as a rule attack their politicians physically. But Palin was widely criticized.

      Funny, same thing happens over here (on a smaller scale, though, because people aren't quite as touchy about gaming).

      I don't see much of an outrage over free speech restrictions in Germany. In fact, most people don't even seem to understand the issues or history very much. Some people are so uninformed, they don't even know the difference between hate crimes and hate speech...

    25. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Isn't it obvious? If you make Nazi symbols illegal, many Nazis that would otherwise be wearing them won't be wearing them.

      Er, what? The only ones wearing them would be the ones who want everyone to know their ideals. Do you really think forbidding them to wear a certain symbol is going to magically make it impossible for them to inform people about their opinions when they really want to? I mean, neo-Nazis do exist and many of them are fairly easy to spot because they tend to have their own identifying marks. The others are hard to spot because they don't want to be identified.

      Because you talk about these issues as if the US and German positions were two equally valid, historically proven, and plausible choices. But if you actually look at the history, you'll find that that's not the case.

      So essentially the position the USA enforced here is wrong because it's not as old as the one they enforced at home. Gotcha. Older is always better.

      No, that is incorrect; offenses under paragraph 185 need not be libelous.

      That's how the paragraph seems to be usually read, however. Also note that "libel" is not an accurate translation; "violation of dignity" is much more accurate.

      Yes, like for example cartoons representing the Prophet Mohammed.

      You are referring to the ones that show Mohammed as a suicide bomber? However could that disturb public peace? I mean, we're just openly insulting two billion people over the actions of a few thousand (which actually run counter to the beliefs of the people we're insulting). I certainly can't see how that could lead to problems.

      Not even close; you're confusing hate crime laws with hate speech laws.

      Paragraph 130 (Why does /. strip out the paragraph symbol? It's in 8859-1.) explicitly talks about acts of speech. I don't see why it shouldn't be called a hate speech law. I never said "hate crime law", if that's what you mean.

      Typically German: you think that because it's in the law the matter is settled. In reality, the fact that it's in the Constitution is only the beginning: it takes laws, courts, and police to implement that, and how the boundaries are drawn is a constant struggle.

      Which, according to your depiction, does not occur. At least you gave the chance of free speech being remstricted for moral reasons as 100%. Since the First makes such an action unconstitutional and Americans love their lawsuits (ie. I assumed that the struggle does occur), the only way such restrictions can be absolutely certain is the First being defunct. Amendments can only become defunct by being repealed, thus you argue that the First has been repealed. Or, of course, nobody bothers to oppose unconstitutional laws anymore.

      I don't see much of an outrage over free speech restrictions in Germany. In fact, most people don't even seem to understand the issues or history very much.

      Look, if you find non-total free speech unacceptable ask your parents or grandparents what the hell they were thinking when they obviously screwed up over here. The policies we have today didn't appear out of thin air, they were put into place during nation building. I do understand the history of why we value human dignity higher than unrestricted speech. Before criticizing someone over not understanding their history, first please actually learn about that history yourself.

      (By the way, telling a German that we don't understand our own history because we made preventing the same mistakes and not free speech our top priority is pretty offensive and, to paraphrase you, typically American. Essentially you criticize that using different premises we came to a different conclusion than you did.)

      Some people are so uninformed, they don't even know

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    26. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by marksu · · Score: 1

      There is no law here against stating anything that is factual right but the rest is true.

      What's the point of having free speech if you can't offend anybody? Didn't opposition to the monarchy or Hitler offend someone? Didn't Luther's 100 theses nailed to the Catholic church door offend the church?

      Ok, thats 3 things:
      1) as I said elsewhere, 'freedom of speech' is not the topmost priority here - its dignity of the person. So offending is a crime. Stating facts is not.
      2) we never opposed our monarchs - that would be un-german. :)
            The lesson we learned from Hitler is that we can't have someone yelling untruths about some minority group (e.g. anti-jewish propaganda) and making a mass movement out of it. Does make sense, does it?
      3) Luther did indeed offend the church and would have gone to jail if he hadn't fled. Nowadays we would have caught him. ;)

      Different countries run on different rules. Many things may look strange to you but they are not necessarily bad. Don't start me on whats weird in the USA... Try to understand the history of a nation and many things get an explanation.

    27. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by speedtux · · Score: 1

      Do you really think forbidding them to wear a certain symbol is going to magically make it impossible

      I didn't say "impossible". What I am saying is that it appears to be better for people to be able to openly identify their political views so that others can debate them.

      So essentially the position the USA enforced here is wrong because it's not as old as the one they enforced at home. Gotcha. Older is always better.

      Right after WWII, Germany was a defeated nation full of ex-Nazis; imposing restrictions on speech was justified and necessary. That has nothing to do with whether such restrictions are a good idea in a mature and functioning democracy.

      Furthermore, it's not a question of which is "older". German-style restrictions on speech are old, but they are associated with undemocratic traditions.

      That's how the paragraph seems to be usually read, however.

      You're just making that up. Paragraph 185 is an unusual restriction on speech even within Europe, distinct from libel laws. It's so unusual that the EU itself has taken a position against these kinds of laws.

      You are referring to the ones that show Mohammed as a suicide bomber? However could that disturb public peace? I mean, we're just openly insulting two billion people over the actions of a few thousand (which actually run counter to the beliefs of the people we're insulting). I certainly can't see how that could lead to problems.

      Yes, one is openly insulting two billion people. Christians, atheists, and other groups often insult each other in that way without rioting. Insults are a normal and necessary part of political discourse in a democracy. If people riot because they feel insulted, then the problem is with the rioters, not with the people making the insults.

      Paragraph 130 (Why does /. strip out the paragraph symbol? It's in 8859-1.) explicitly talks about acts of speech. I don't see why it shouldn't be called a hate speech law. I never said "hate crime law", if that's what you mean.

      You argued that laws similar to paragraph 130 exist in the US and in support of that statement pointed to an ADL page on hate crime laws. But paragraph 130 is very different from US hate crime laws. Hate speech is generally legal in the US, even speech advocating illegal violence against minorities.

      Essentially you criticize that using different premises we came to a different conclusion than you did.)

      I simply question whether you understand the issues at all, and I criticize you for not justifying your conclusions adequately. It may be obvious to you that German-style restrictions on speech work as intended, but it's not obvious to much of the rest of the world.

      (By the way, telling a German that we don't understand our own history because we made preventing the same mistakes and not free speech our top priority is pretty offensive and, to paraphrase you, typically American.

      It's easy to be democratic when your bellies are full and the alternative is US military intervention.

      I'm sorry you're offended, but the burden here is still on Germany to show to the world that it can be trusted.

    28. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say "impossible". What I am saying is that it appears to be better for people to be able to openly identify their political views so that others can debate them.

      Well, the classical Nazis wouldn't because they'd risk getting lynched. Many neo-Nazis do; they just chose different symbols (well, they essentially ripped off the Skinhead movement from the UK).

      Right after WWII, Germany was a defeated nation full of ex-Nazis; imposing restrictions on speech was justified and necessary. That has nothing to do with whether such restrictions are a good idea in a mature and functioning democracy.

      The question is, when do you stop? After five years, ten, twenty? When the last Nazi is dead? That last one still hasn't occurred. When the idea of national socialism has died out? That's not going to happen anytime soon. We as a people are just starting to become comfortable with ourselves, so you can't expect us to drop all cautionary measures we have taken.

      You're just making that up. Paragraph 185 is an unusual restriction on speech even within Europe, distinct from libel laws. It's so unusual that the EU itself has taken a position against these kinds of laws.

      Again, "libel" is a bad translation for what it tries do cover. Also, yes, I've dug a bit more and have uncovered a lot of rather petty cases (although in essence it all revolves around when someone feels that his reputation or dignity has been violated). I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if we got rid of it.

      It's by no means a perfect law but it's also not a law that can be used to suppress political speech - as evidence I point to the current election campaign of the SPD, which is essentially rather infantile name-calling, as well as the various anti-Schäuble actions, the most high-profile of which calls him the direct successor of the GDR's Ministry for State Security. The SPD is getting no legal trouble from the other parties at all and Schäuble has tried all kinds of obscure things (like trying to pretend the people demonstrating against him are enemies of the constitution) - if the insult paragraph could help him he'd use it.

      Yes, one is openly insulting two billion people. Christians, atheists, and other groups often insult each other in that way without rioting. Insults are a normal and necessary part of political discourse in a democracy. If people riot because they feel insulted, then the problem is with the rioters, not with the people making the insults.

      I never felt that deeply offending someone was necessary in political discourse but if it's deemed that way over there it does explain why nobody likes the USA anymore.

      Imagine there's a bit more violence in Iraq, the USA responds by sending more troops and in response to that some Eurasian newspaper makes a caricature that shows Barack Obama as Adolf Hitler, declaring that the States will now begin an ethnic cleansing of the Middle East. Because, you know, America is all about ruling one's subjects with an iron fist. I'd expect a lot of Americans becoming quite angry about that - it's not only very insulting but also shows the American values as something they explicitly aren't. Even if only one percent of all Americans gets angry, that's still three million people. One percent of all Muslims getting angry makes twenty million people - enough to seem like an army and make for some very impressive TV footage, even though most muslims don't even care about it.

      You argued that laws similar to paragraph 130 exist in the US and in support of that statement pointed to an ADL page on hate crime laws. But paragraph 130 is very different from US hate crime laws. Hate speech is generally legal in the US, even speech advocating illegal violence against minorities.

      Ah. I would've known right away had you quoted the sentence where I talk about the Sta

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    29. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by speedtux · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the USA... You show us that you can be trusted. [...] If anyone needs to show the international community they're not going to randomly set the world on fire it's the States.

      So, let's say the US just withdraws its troops worldwide and turns inward. Who is going to take care of Germany's defense? Are you going to throw your pacifism out the window, start building nuclear weapons, and start fighting for yourself? Is Germany going to dismantle its social safety net so that it can spend half of its annual budget on defense? Are you personally willing to kill to keep Germany free? That's what it takes.

      The US would love for Europe and Japan to take care of their own defense and pull their own weight. But, as you just showed again, Europe and Japan just aren't ready, and the US can't risk Europe falling.

    30. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Apart from the UK and France still having nuclear weapons, the USA being a NATO member has absolutely nothing to with, for example, making up bad excuses for attacking Iraq (and dragging us into that mess with you). Or running black sites over here. Or extraordinary rendition (whether you believe it or not, there are intelligence services besides your own). Or using WIPO to push DMCA-style legislation on us in a rather transparent case of the government bowing to their sponsors.

      The problem is not that the States have big guns. The problem is that the States believe they are entitled to do whatever they want. Where is the difference between an absolutist protector and a tyrant? And when does such a country go from a protector of liberty to a threat thereof? All the free speech in the world does nothing for us if we ultimately have to bow to another country's whims.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    31. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by speedtux · · Score: 1

      making up bad excuses for attacking Iraq (and dragging us into that mess with you)

      I happen to think Iraq was a mistake, but so what? Besides, European politicians by and large were just using it to score political points.

      Where is the difference between an absolutist protector and a tyrant? And when does such a country go from a protector of liberty to a threat thereof?

      I don't know, but attacking nations like Iraq or Afghanistan is certainly not a threat to liberty.

      All the free speech in the world does nothing for us if we ultimately have to bow to another country's whims.

      Germany wouldn't have to bow to US whims if it did what is necessary to defend itself. But it's so much easier for Germans not to spend the money, pretend they're pacifists, and keep whining about the US.

      The expression "put up or shut up" applies here: either Germany needs to become a world military power, or it needs to accept that other nations run the show.

    32. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I happen to think Iraq was a mistake, but so what? Besides, European politicians by and large were just using it to score political points.

      Ah yes, I forgot Poland. If I remember correctly in many cases those political points were scored by trying to give the States as little support as possible.

      I don't know, but attacking nations like Iraq or Afghanistan is certainly not a threat to liberty.

      Afghanistan, okay. They harbored people claiming responsibility for an act that extremely pissed you off and refused to extradite them. But Iraq? Iraq is a prime example of the States invading a country just to get at its natural resources. What happens the next time the States need oil? They find a pretense to attack Saudi Arabia? What if the Middle East bands together under Iran's nuclear umbrella - how long until Norway becomes a valid goal? I see Iraq as a rather unsettling sign as it shows that the States will do virtually anything to get what they want.

      The expression "put up or shut up" applies here: either Germany needs to become a world military power, or it needs to accept that other nations run the show.

      But who do the States protect us from? North Korea? They're more of a threat to Japan and South Korea and even if they did actually threaten us, Europe has the nuclear capacity to play Unilaterally Assured Destruction with them. (And yes, it makes sense to see the EU as an entity here as neither France nor the UK would be happy about their neighbors getting nuked.) China? In fifteen years the Chinese will simply buy their way past anything the States do.

      Or do you mean this in a "de facto we already rule the world" way? You know, if American behavior keeps reflecting this I do expect us to do warfare on them - economic warfare. Europe is the world's biggest market and we have very good trade relations to China, soon to be the world's biggest everything. If the USA keep making themselves look like the bad guys we can simply shift our economic attention away from them and convince them to do the same. If we make ourselves important enough to, say, China, Russia and India we're even rather safe as none of them could attack us without pissing off the others. And yes, while China has a bad human rights policy, they at least respect other nations' sovereignty (yes, I know about Nepal; the problem with the States is that they respect no other nation's sovereignty).

      Right now the USA are an aging superpower on its way out, desperately trying to somehow keep themselves relevant, pissing off everyone in the process. A bit like the RIAA, if you will. I just hope they don't get desperate enough to do something really stupid.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    33. Re:Germany has a problem with democracy by speedtux · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But who do the States protect us from?

      The US isn't trying to protect Germany at all, it's trying to protect itself: its markets, its access to resources, and its citizens. Democracy in Europe is, and has ever been, only a means to that end.

      Iraq is a prime example of the States invading a country just to get at its natural resources.

      And if so, so what? Iraq was a corrupt, murderous, and genocidal dictatorship. What is wrong with attempting to democratize it and install a free market economy that is actually willing to trade with the US and Europe? Everybody wins that way. Hey, the US did the same thing in Germany and it worked out well for Germans, didn't it? The other victors would have been happy to dismantle Germany completely or treat it like the Soviets did with East Germany.

      Besides, the US isn't just getting natural resources for itself, it's also getting them for Europe. What do you think European economy and politics would look like if the US didn't do these things? Europe can't even ensure a reliable flow of heating gas from Russia.

      China? In fifteen years the Chinese will simply buy their way past anything the States do.

      I don't want to live in a world dominated by China, Russia, and Islamic nations. I suspect neither do you. Maybe we can't do anything about it in the long term, but I'm glad at least someone is trying in the short term.

      I do expect us to do warfare on them - economic warfare.

      The US and European economies are too tightly linked; you'd just end up destroying both. That is why European and American politicians keep talking.

      Right now the USA are an aging superpower on its way out, desperately trying to somehow keep themselves relevant

      Europe could easily replace the US as the world's superpower: spend half your national budgets on the military instead of social programs and start acting like a superpower. Americans would be overjoyed: we didn't want to get into the superpower business, it was repeated European screw-ups that forced America's hand.

      But what you do instead is lecture the US on what one should and shouldn't do, avoid any kind of responsibility yourself, all the while enjoying the economic and social benefits that you derive from US military power.

      Personally, I think the US actually should get out of the superpower business; I think trying to protect Europe from itself is a lost cause and sooner or later we can't afford it anymore and have to stop anyway. But my fellow Americans aren't willing to pay the steep economic price for that. And make no mistake: the consequences for Europe would be disastrous.

  29. Mod parent up by Anzya · · Score: 1

    Wish I had some mod points.

    --
    "This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
  30. Whoa, you missed the parents point COMPLETELY by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    His point was that people don't want to believe that some people are just rotten. Your godwinned example would then have to be "Some people just don't want to believe Hitler was just really a bad guy and keep looking for excuses for his actions and how he was so misunderstood and nobody gave him hugs".

    This is roughly the problem in europe. We keep lowering jail sentences because punishing people don't work and keep giving hugs and finding excuses for peoples actions. It don't work either because the sad thing is, some people are just rotten. Rotten because they decided their needs are of more importance then anybody else. That they are entitled and nobody else is.

    These german ministers are refusing to accept these shooters are just ammoral scum who would have killed no matter what because they simply don't care about anyone. No ban on anything (except guns) is going to stop them. You MIGHT be able to cure them, but only when you allow society to forcibly treat people who have not yet committed any crime. Kinda risky for a politician to suggest.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Whoa, you missed the parents point COMPLETELY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it fails on such a scale, that violent crimes happen less year after year. And people who really don't care about anyone are called sociopaths, it's a psychological disorder which can't be cured. But sociopaths wouldn't kill everyone around them, because it doesn't advance their goals

  31. Like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like "Hunt for Wikileaks"?

    Or do they mean only games they do not play themselves?

  32. Bizzaro-America by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's interesting how much of a cultural inversion Germany is from the United States. Here in the U.S. we practically cherish violence in our culture, while the Germans seem opposed to most violence we'd often consider "tame" by our standards. Yet, it's exactly opposite when it comes to sexually "explicit" content. We fear it so much, we actually fight among ourselves over whether or not we can safely discuss sex with our children outside of telling them "don't do it." In the meanwhile, you could practically go up to any magazine rack in Germany and find magazines for children featuring pictures of topless women that would only pass as pornography here in the U.S.

    An interesting case in how differently we view violence as acceptable would be some past games like "Carmageddon", a title that was loosely based on the 70's movie "Death Race 2000". In the U.S., you could kill regular people in the streets with your car in the game. In the U.K., this was switched to zombies with green "blood". In Germany, this was replaced with robots.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
    1. Re:Bizzaro-America by paniq · · Score: 1

      Uhm... "Magazines for children featuring pictures of topless women" - I'm living in Germany. If what you describe does exist, my childhood would have been a lot happier ;) What is true: public magazine stands with magazines for people of all ages, including erotic magazines showing breasts and such.

      --
      Do not trust this signature.
  33. I'd like to point out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that the interior ministers conference rather base this ban on their personal opinion rather than any evidence, oh and these guys have strong ties with the German equivalent of the National Rifle Association, who trained all the guys who later went postal.

    But what do you expect: the first censorship bill (internet DNS) is as good as passed so here comes the next (video games).

  34. some explanations for non-germans by marksu · · Score: 2, Informative

    The 16 Interior Ministers are ministers of the 16 states. There is a seperate minister of the interior for germany. The states ministers control the police of their state. They have no legislative power. In theory they can ask the Bundestag as much as I can although they obviously make a bigger fuss...
    This year is a year with a lot of elections in different states, european and communal votes (all on different dates). That makes idiotic statements by politicians more likely.
    Also Spiegel Online noticed that there is a generation gap between those who 'understand' the internet/games and those who don't. As this gap is roughly at the age of 35-40 most of the people in the power are in the 'don't' category. But recently there has sprung up a movement to give those who do a public voice. An online petition to the Bundestag against censorship has recently gained over 100000 supporters.
    And lastly theres very often that 'free speech' argument. Different to the USA free speech is not the number one in our constitution (Grundgesetz in Germany) - it is the dignity of the person. IMHO neither option is better than the other but it makes public discussions work different here than in the USA. You can't use the free speech thing as an argument against 'killer games' here - 'think of the children' comes first.

  35. German Slashdotters: F*cking do something! by Qbertino · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is yet another slew of ultra-pointless pre-election gibberish. Extremely violent videogames such as Manhunt are allready factually banned for public sale and sale to minors in Germany, based on laws existing since the dawn of the republic.

    The rubbish on Computers, Videogames and the Internet that the ruling class in Germany has been putting out in recent years has reached staggering heights that are compareable to the situation in the US.

    I for one am going to send in my support signature for the Piratenpartei (German branch of the Pirate Party) and do an all out vote for them whenever the occasion arises. If all German INet savy people do that, we could have the 5% hurdle for the Bundestag in no time. That'll teach them.

    And if you are german, how about pitching in? Your signature paves the way to the Bundestag. For once get off your fat lazy unpolitical geek ass and help roll Schäuble and Zensursula straight out of office. And screw the Greens (Grüne) on this one! Don't forget that Tritin and Fischer had a big hand in passing that Internet law a few years back ('Gesetz zum verbesserten Schutz des Urheberrechtes im Internet' aka 'German DMCA')!

    Beweg' Deinen Arsch und tu' was! (visit links above)

    My 2 Euros.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:German Slashdotters: F*cking do something! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I am thinking about doing something... Moving to Sweden, where the Pirates actually have clout. I'm not so sure whether the German ones will ever take off. Or whether I will ever be able to actually vote for them, not living in one of the large population centers.

      And no, I won't open a local chapter and try to get elected. I don't have the money to not do a regular job fulltime and I'd feel unclean if I actually went into politics.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    2. Re:German Slashdotters: F*cking do something! by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      You should be able to vote PIRATEN for the European elections - go for it!

    3. Re:German Slashdotters: F*cking do something! by Asic+Eng · · Score: 2, Informative

      Especially after this news: http://www.ka-news.de/nachrichten/karlsruhe/Karlsruhe-Killerspiele-Gruene;art6066,199419 Here the Green party is asking for "a clear signal against killer games". Sorry I'd like a clear signal for individual freedom instead.

    4. Re:German Slashdotters: F*cking do something! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > For once get off your fat lazy unpolitical geek ass and

      You think voting because of fscking viodeo games is not unpolitical?
      Gibs are nice and all but.. hey.. there's a real world out there....
      There are more important political things than games, u know.
      fsck pirates.. vote REPs

    5. Re:German Slashdotters: F*cking do something! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's why I'm actually going to vote tomorrow. (By the way, that might be one reason why a strong EU is so popular in Europe: Unlike our nations, it can still be influenced by the voters.)

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    6. Re:German Slashdotters: F*cking do something! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comparable to the USA ?

      Are you fucking kidding me ? There is no ban on games in the USA ... a fucking European Nazis are hosting their sites in the USA .. face it dude, you are far, far beyond the USA in terms of restrictions of this kind.

  36. Wehrsportgruppe Online by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

    First of all the case is about populism and elections. Second the interior minister likes to stake the demands a bit higher to negotiate something in between. Third that debate would be a fantastic recruitment tool for a gamer's rights campaign, So in the end Germans will get a a happy interior minister hated by everyone and and we would have a kind of CyberNRA e.V. Germany won't do it alone but on a European level. SchÃuble just tests the national debate.

  37. Ulterior motives by kylerowens · · Score: 1

    This is just their way of getting Uwe Boll to stop making movies.

  38. Re:g0 fuk y0ur$e1f by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your mother is gay!

    Am I doing it right?

  39. The Nazis are back in power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Nazis are back in power except this time round they have the technology to stifle the opposition without the need for bloodshed.

    Little by little, more and more is becoming illegal. What was once the realm of interpersonal relationships is slowly being taken over by the state. They will now tell you what you can say and what you cannot say, which game you can play and which you cannot. Soon they will tell you which flag you can wave and what you must think. It will be illegal to not like things which the state supports and to dislike things which the state dislikes - we're part way there already, and not only in Germany. There's not a lot I like about US politics, but one thing I do admire about the US is the freedom of speech enshrined in the constitution. Be glad you have it. It doesn't exist in Europe and I am not aware of any other country where it is protected.

  40. we all have a problem with democracy by blackest_k · · Score: 1

    yours is quite a good post but it kind of sets Germans apart from other nationalities and I don't think this is a distinction that can be made.

    Germans are not really in a class of their own, abuse of power isn't unusual and particularly in hard economic times protectionism tends to become more open. Where ever you live buy --- (insert your country name here) and protect our jobs become a common rallying cry.

    Theres no real difference between people fundamentally we all have the people we care about, some we don't much care for, all of us have some national pride. Once it gets to people outside of our national group we suddenly pretend that "other nation" is different and we have the right to treat them differently to our own kind.

    We are all one kind human, mankind and fundamentally we want the same things. Politics sets us against each other and its a farce because all we really want is a safe comfortable environment to raise our families and what we get are stupid groupings of special interest groups , align with us and we will see you right unfortunately the reality is the politicians only take care of their own and damn the rest of us.

    It's pretty much evident that most people can not see enough difference between the parties to even bother to cast a vote.

    People are just people when it comes down to it, just when our leaders do evil things we justify it in the name of national interest.

    1. Re:we all have a problem with democracy by speedtux · · Score: 1

      yours is quite a good post but it kind of sets Germans apart from other nationalities and I don't think this is a distinction that can be made.

      But there are differences among nations; German history is different from US or French history. And German laws and attitudes towards free speech are different.

      People are just people when it comes down to it, just when our leaders do evil things we justify it in the name of national interest.

      The question is what people do about it, and the first step towards doing something about bad government is free speech. The US and many other nations explicitly permit anonymous speech and offensive speech, not because people like it, but because prohibiting it carries a big risk. Given Germany's history, maybe it would be good to pay attention and think about it.

  41. . . .and in stores in bordering countries . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    . . . like Poland or the Czech Republic, where Germans flock for bargains? What about buying something online in another country?

    How will you really know that kids don't have ultra-violent games on their PCs? Maybe allow the Federal Police (Kripo) to plant trojans that snoop around on kids' computers?

    I guess they'll need a federal department to decide what's ultra-violent, and what's not. And the Border Police and Customs will need to check travelers for this as well. What if you enter the country with a title that they have not rated yet?

    This is just politicians abusing a tragic shooting incident, and trying to spin some political capital by trying to look like they are doing something about a complicated problem that has no trivial solutions.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  42. oh, blow your non sequitors out your ass by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Right, people just come out of the womb stabbing and biting everything in sight.

    Straw man. The rest of your post is a giant non sequitor.

    Stop blaming shit on genetics just because it frees you of responsibility for your community.

    People aren't interested in violence and sex because of media, violent media are made because people are interested by violence and sex.

  43. Bundestag by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

    ... the Bundestag (Germany's equivalent of Parliament)...

    What is that supposed to mean? That sounds as if it were some weird, not-really-a-parliament thing.
    It is Germany's parliament. Or would you call the US Congress "the US equivalent of parliament"?

    It has just a non-generic name (in another language even!). See Knesset (Israel), Diet (Japan), Sansad (India), ...

  44. Slow News Day. Time to bash the Germans again. by vorlich · · Score: 1

    Speigel is available in English so there is no need to use Google's hilarious language masher. http://www.spiegel.de/international/ This item will not appear for a few days since it is bit of electioneering to a very violence-sensitive nation and not really international news. You can read alternative German opinions on the subject in Thelocal http://www.thelocal.de/opinion/20090317-18073.html.

    It probably comes as a surprise that Germany is a democracy and has many different opinions on a variety of subjects. The nation has a remarkable number of elderly people compared to the rest of the world and most of them think the internet comes in a box. This sort of thing appeals to them. They don't allow ordinary citizens to carry handguns either and they do provide healthcare for all of their citizens and even non-citizens who are employed. Abortion, contraception and education, including sex education, are available to all and their is a clear separation between what are considered religious ideas and what are scientific concepts.
    They also have some of the fastest cars in the world and the safest roads on the planet where you can travel at sub-light speeds legally.

    As slashdot's regular defender of all things German ( I have a Bavarian family) and rebutter of this sort of FUD, I am not too worried about ./ propagating ridiculous stereotypes about this country and its very open, liberal and democratic society, because it means fewer people with those daft opinions will come here and spoil it all for me. It's a beautiful part of the world as well and dare I mention how similar the Germans are to the ... Americans!

    --
    Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
  45. As a protest by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

    (and I'm dead serious here)

    A group of people should dress up in Nazi uniforms, wearing swastikas, and start a bonfire in a safe area. When the media arrives, they should start throwing boxes of violent PC games, literature, and movies, shouting the German equivalent of "our society will be free of the things I hate!"

    It's worth getting arrested for. This is important.

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
  46. Wait... by kwietman · · Score: 1

    Jack Thompson is a member of the German Parliament now?

    --
    The universe is made of atoms and empty space. All else is speculation. --Democritus of Abdera, 435 BC
  47. Re:No! by easyTree · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Warmongering neo-con ghoul detected...

  48. Makes perfect sense by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Jobs are BAD. We need to chase as many of them overseas as we possibly can!

    (To me, the only bearable choice in the upcoming elections is the Pirate Party. We need someone who is not fucking stupid about technology.)

    1. Re:Makes perfect sense by cheap+wow+gold · · Score: 1

      Weekends to peopleig2t mean that they can have a two-day wowgold4europe good rest. For exampleï¼OE people gameusd can go out to enjoy themselves or get meinwowgold together with relatives and friends to talk with each storeingame other or watch interesting video tapes with the speebie whole family. Everyone spends agamegold weekends in his ownmmofly way. Within two days,some people can relax themselves by listening to musicï¼OE reading novelsï¼OEor watchingogeworld films. Others perhaps are more active by playing basketballï¼OEwimming ormmorpgvip dancing. Different people have different gamesavor relaxations. I often spend weekends withoggsale my family or my friends. Sometimes my parents take me on a visit to their old friends. Sometimesgamersell I go to the library to study or borrow some books tommovirtex gain much knowledge. I also go to see various exhibition to broadenrpg trader my vision. An excursion to seashore or mountain resorts is my favorite way of spending weekends. Weekends are always enjoyable for me. igxe swagvault oforu wowgold-usa ignmax wowgoldlive brogame thsale GoldRockU brogame swagvault goldsoon oforu igxe thsale

  49. Silly. by Mwise1023 · · Score: 0

    So,

    Let's ban War.
    Let's ban images of War.
    Let's ban history textbooks of War.
    Let's ban everything and anything related to human death caused by another human.

    A game does not desensitize. Exposure, in general, desensitizes people. And even then does NOT create people who are easier and more likely to kill another person. If that were the case, the major cities would implode across the planet.

    Banning games that have violence against humans is silly. They should address why these sell in the first place. They're not solving problems by banning games. They are just sweeping dirt under the carpet and ignoring the issue/problem. Games are not the problem. Violence is not the problem. The problem is the human condition, and we cannot ban that.

    Very best,

  50. TV, Video Games, Entertainment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One nation under God has turned into
    one nation under the influence of one drug

    [chorus:]

    T.V., its satellite links our United States of Unconsciousness Apathetic therapeutic and extremely addictive The methadone metronome pumping out 150 channels 24 hours a day you can flip through all of them and still there's nothing worth watching T.V. is the reason why less than 10 per cent of our Nation reads books daily Why most people think Central America means Kansas Socialism means unamerican and Apartheid is a new headache remedy absorbed in it's world it's so hard to find us It shapes our mind the most maybe the mother of our Nation should remind us that we're sitting too close to...

    [Chorus:]

    T.V. is the stomping ground for political candidates Where bears in the woods are chased by Grecian Formula'd bald eagles T.V. is mechanized politic's remote control over the masses co-sponsored by environmentally safe gases watch for the PBS special It's the perpetuation of the two party system where image takes precedence over wisdom Where sound bite politics are served to the fastfood culture Where straight teeth in your mouth are more important than the words
    that come out of it Race baiting is the way to get selected Willie Horton or Will he not get elected on...

    [Chorus:]

    T.V., is it the reflector or the director? Does it imitate us or do we imitate it? Because a child watches 1500 murders before he's twelve years old and we wonder why we've created a Jason generation that learns to laugh rather than to abhor the horror T.V. is the place where armchair generals and quarterbacks can experience first hand the excitement of warfare as the theme song is sung in the background. Sugar sweet sitcoms that leave us with a bad actor taste while pop stars metamorphosize into soda pop stars, You saw the video, You heard the soundtrack, Well now go buy the soft drink. Well, the onla cola that I support would be a union C.O.L.A.(Cost Of Living Allowance) On television

    [Chorus:]
    Back again, 'New and improved' We return to our irregularly programmed schedule hidden cleverly between heavy breasted beer and car commercials
    CNNESPNABCTNT but mostly B.S. Where oxymoronic language like 'virtually spotless', 'fresh frozen'
    'light yet filling' and 'military intelligence' have become standard T.V. is the place where phrases are redefined like 'recession' to 'necessary downturn' 'Crude oil' on a beach to 'mousse' 'Civilian death' to 'collateral damages' and being killed by your own Army is now called 'friendly fire' T.V. is the place where the pursuit of happiness has become the pursuit of
    trivia Where toothpaste and cars have become
    sex objects Where imagination is sucked out of children by a cathode ray nipple T.V. is the only wet nurse that would create a cripple

    [Chorus:]
    Television, the drug of the Nation, Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation

  51. It's a damn shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything to get voted into office. We tried it here. The best we got was stickers to say this game has life like violence. Why dont we take care of the root cause of the issue. Parenting. If we try being a parent sometimes instead of plopping our kids infront of the TV and game systems all day this type of crap would not happen. I have a 6yr old son and he only watches maybe 10hours of tv a week (including sat and sun) He playes video games even less. I make him go outside and play with friends (real flesh and blood people) I disapline him. (We all know this is severly lacking here in america) He knows right from wrong and he accepts responsabilty for his own actions. This is a ploy by the politicians to get and stay in office. If they do ban these games what are they going to do when that does not work. What or who are they going to blame next.

  52. cheap wow gold by cheap+wow+gold · · Score: 1

    Weekends to peopleig2t mean that they can have a two-day wowgold4europe good rest. For exampleï¼OE people gameusd can go out to enjoy themselves or get meinwowgold together with relatives and friends to talk with each storeingame other or watch interesting video tapes with the speebie whole family. Everyone spends agamegold weekends in his ownmmofly way. Within two days,some people can relax themselves by listening to musicï¼OE reading novelsï¼OEor watchingogeworld films. Others perhaps are more active by playing basketballï¼OEwimming ormmorpgvip dancing. Different people have different gamesavor relaxations. I often spend weekends withoggsale my family or my friends. Sometimes my parents take me on a visit to their old friends. Sometimesgamersell I go to the library to study or borrow some books tommovirtex gain much knowledge. I also go to see various exhibition to broadenrpg trader my vision. An excursion to seashore or mountain resorts is my favorite way of spending weekends. Weekends are always enjoyable for me. igxe swagvault oforu wowgold-usa ignmax wowgoldlive brogame thsale GoldRockU brogame swagvault goldsoon oforu igxe thsale