Slashdot Mirror
South Park Game Censored On Consoles Outside North America
RogueyWon writes "South Park has long been vocal in its opposition to media censorship from any source, launching scathing attacks on everything from 'think of the children' moral crusades to the censorship of religious imagery. In a curious twist, therefore, Ubisoft, the publisher of the upcoming video game South Park: The Stick of Truth, has decided to censor certain scenes from the game's Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 versions from release in Europe, Australia, the Middle East and Africa. American versions, as well as the European PC release, so far appear to have escaped the censor's pen."
Are you sure that the US release wasn't also censored in some way?
Here's how it works: US companies submit their games to US ratings boards FIRST, then they remove shit the US censors don't like, and once the US censors approve it, they sent it to ratings boards in other countries, who sometimes remove OTHER stuff.
However, we, the consumers, never see the ORIGINAL version before the US censors make their cuts, because the game companies don't bother trying to put those things in non-US versions.
When the Australian classification board said no to a few things in Saints Row IV, a big fuss was made, but Volition have mentioned in the past that US ratings board said no to a few things, and there was no outcry.
From this, we learn: People are fine with censorship in the USA, but if it's allowed in the USA it should be allowed everywhere.
Anything to incite civil unrest against a group of people(no, the government doesn't count) and lies to discredit people.
That pretty much means NO criticisms against religion - especially Islam.
The things that are done in this World in the name of [insert religion - including Buddhists ] is appalling. The religious fundamentalists, unwilling and unable to adjust to the modern World, are bullying everyone else with violence, lobbying and other political maneuvering and outright lies - like Creation Museums.
There's a point when you just have to stand up to the bully. Those people need to be told - shouted down - that they are backwards, full of shit, and if they are going to live among us, they need to STFU.
Or compromise like the Amish do in the US. I highly respect those folks. They stick to their values, they don't try to force them on others, and they found a way to live peacefully and well with the modern World.
Ubisoft as nothing to do with this censorship btw. Ubisoft and other publishers do the games. It's the countries that makes the censorship so the main problem comes from those places...not the company. Look at Saint Row 4 problems in Australia. They dare censor and block the game but gave multiple different version of their blocking reasons...which changed from a day to day basis which made no sense. Censorship usually happens because of a lack of knowledge over computers, the game itself and the main reason of the censorship too oddly enough.
PC Gaming enthousiast that gives comments, opinions and reviews on Games. I'm just having fun with games while doing let
Censorship is typically used by the powerful to maintain their power. This is no different in a democracy -- the power hungry simply jump through an additional hoop of stirring up many people to join in the censorship. These people happily re-elect said censor.
If this does not highlight the difference between freedom and democracy for those of you who think mass approval is the necessary and sufficient, indeed only, justification for wielding power, I don't know what will.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Those should be disallowed.
And also, Canada, whose citizens I irrationally blame for this entire mess! Especially you, Scott!!!
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
The Middle-Eastern version will just be a character sitting around in a empty room, sipping tea. And several imams will STILL condemn it as blasphemous.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Given that the mere innocent mention of certain Prophets can incite a riot, I don't think even that is a good criterion.
Doing otherwise gives the most irrational types a trump card on what constitutes free speech.
Brett
Inciting a riot, ill give you that one.
Wouldn't it be better to make rioting illegal, rather than speaking?
Tea is a symbol of the imperialist British empire.
I'd suggest reading the summary and realizing that 1. The censor is Ubisoft and 2.Ubisoft is not a location or government. Although, if you weren't able to understand that from the short summary, I'm probably just talking to myself here.
How do you incite a riot without physically assaulting someone?
Draw a cartoon of the Prophet, of course!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/19/muhammadcartoons.ameliahill
Anything to incite civil unrest against a group of people(no, the government doesn't count) and lies to discredit people.
Those should be disallowed.
Anything else should be free game.
The problem with that standard is that it gives anyone who chooses to act "incited" the power to censor anyone else.
Actually, we're generally much more prone to censorship here in Europe. Many of the countries in the EU have hang-ups on particular issues for historical reasons (eg. Germany on Nazi imagery and violence, France on the use of other languages). Many countries are also developing exciting new hang-ups and things they can censor, driven mainly by the three prongs of the Islamic far-right (pushing hard for new blasphemy laws), the authoritarian left (in thrall to both multiculturalism and radical feminism, both of which depend upon censorship) and an overbearing security culture (well... see pretty much 50% of slashdot's front page stories). And the general approach taken by the EU is to adopt the most draconian elements of each member nation's policies. If we get through the next German presidency of the EU without its ridiculous censorship standards being forced on the whole of Europe, we shall be extremely lucky.
Individuals and corporates in the US certainly practice self-censorship. But you are much more likely to encounter state-censorship in Europe - and it's getting more likely all the time.
But we're generally ok with swearing. So it's all absolutely fine.
Wikipedia says that there are 6 of them.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
sounds like a real dick to me
I think you're overestimating the influence of the islamic far right in Europe while underestimating the christian far right.
Inciting a riot, ill give you that one.
Wouldn't it be better to make rioting illegal, rather than speaking?
Encouraging people to commit a crime is also, generally, a crime. Speaking with the intent to cause a riot? Criminal. Speech that happens incidentally to cause a riot? Not criminal.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
You're wrong. We have both PRIOR RESTRAINT, approval rating process for media, AND after the fact banning (uk, germany, ...).
Per TFA the game is being stripped of two abortions and five anal probes, allegedly to gain access to the German market. Have no idea where your rant on religion has its basis.
We all know how envious South Park is of Canada.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Are you really saying that "conspiracy to commit murder" should be legal? That if I convince my friend to kill you on my behalf, as long as he does the actually killing then I'm just "exercising free speech"?
Yes. The murderer is at fault.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Is where you lose your logic. Just because the world has unreasonable people that I know will react violently to the truth, does not mean I have to shut up.
For example: It might be unwise to tell a Russian that the best evidence has Vodka being invented in Poland but it should not be illegal.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Well, I've never heard of a legal tradition that worked that way.
You'll find that I have a mind of my own and am not a slave to legal traditions.
I like the idea that the rich aren't just paying people full time to murder everyone who annoys them
Since when is giving money to someone speech? I don't consider it so. Just asking someone to murder someone would be speech, though.
Thank you Dave Raggett
What are you trying to do here? You're not going to convince me of anything, as I believe in absolute free speech.
In any case, let's talk about what's inside the deepest reaches of your bare undies...
Thank you Dave Raggett
...direct speech -> violence...
There is no such thing! There is ALWAYS a man in the middle. The man who acts, and only the man who acts is solely responsible for his actions. "Following orders" is no excuse. You either control yourself or you don't. The law exists only as political expediency to protect authority.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Since when is giving money to someone speech?
Giving it is okay. Taking it is the crime. The sinner is Eve, not the serpent :-)
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”