Face the facts people, true freedom of speech dosen't exist.

If it did exist, I would be able to say "Kill the president!" in a formal speech without any offenses whatsoever.

Whenever a certain game gets banned in a particular country, people get way too worked up about it.

It doesn't exist, and I don't think it ever will.

If it did exist, I would be able to say "Kill the president!" in a formal speech without any offenses whatsoever.Super-Mario-Fan

Freedom of speech does not cover that.

[QUOTE="Super-Mario-Fan"]If it did exist, I would be able to say "Kill the president!" in a formal speech without any offenses whatsoever.LordAndrew

Freedom of speech does not cover that.

This isn't just the United States I'm talking about, but the entire world. Violent video games in general have always been a subject of controversy, and that stance will probably continue.

[QUOTE="LordAndrew"]

[QUOTE="Super-Mario-Fan"]If it did exist, I would be able to say "Kill the president!" in a formal speech without any offenses whatsoever.Super-Mario-Fan

Freedom of speech does not cover that.

This isn't just the United States I'm talking about, but the entire world. Violent video games in general have always been a subject of controversy, and that stance will probably continue.

Which country? Different countries have different sets of rules for "freedom of speech".

Well Rage against the machine said that the president should be shot at one of there concerts, there was "outrage" in the media, but no real repercusions. I agree though... Manhunt 2 wtf? it was violent but banned? at least until they censored it. wtfxisytenin

Banned by the console manufacturers, not by the US government.

[QUOTE="Super-Mario-Fan"][QUOTE="LordAndrew"]

[QUOTE="Super-Mario-Fan"]If it did exist, I would be able to say "Kill the president!" in a formal speech without any offenses whatsoever.LordAndrew

Freedom of speech does not cover that.

This isn't just the United States I'm talking about, but the entire world. Violent video games in general have always been a subject of controversy, and that stance will probably continue.

Which country? Different countries have different sets of rules for "freedom of speech".

Any country. It dosen't matter. Whenever a game gets banned anywhere, people overreact.

Any country. It dosen't matter. Whenever a game gets banned anywhere, people overreact.

Super-Mario-Fan

That's just people over-reacting. That has nothing to do with freedom of speech. In fact freedom of speech gives them the right to over-react.

Freedom of speech exists in every country to some extent. You can say whatever you think or feel (or even what you dont) anytime you want really. It just matters who is in earshot. If you tell someone "wow, you look really fat today, what did you eat?" for instance you might not like the reaction you get. Provoking words of any sort can lead to imprisonment or violence. It is best to think things through before you speak them no matter where you are. And remember that not everyone is like minded to you or will easily forgive an insult or threat.

Even though it is always possible to say anything, you should be mindful.

I think true freedom of speech doesn't exist because of how controlled the mainstream media is. In our constitution there was right that any person young, poor, rich etc could have equal time in the place where people could get their message out to the masses. Which was the town square back then. Now that town square has become the news channels. And It's really impossible for you speak your voice on them even if you paid. All you see are million dollar paid pundits and celebrities..

And even if a group of billionaires wanted to start their own news channel it would be another impossible act. Because of how much the permit/right is controlled. Try making your own radio channel these days.. So it boils down to this, I can freely speak my mind in most places but it really isn't that powerful if someone else is saying the opposite on a mainstream network while I'm speaking at a concert hall..

Freedom of speech =/= freedom to an audience. Games fall into a whole other category.Sagacious_Tien

I've heard that term many times before... freedom of speech and an audience go hand in hand. What's the point of freedom of speech if you don't have anyone to speak to? And who exactly controls this "audience". Because it's definitely not constitutional for someone to have that kind of power..

[QUOTE="Sagacious_Tien"]Freedom of speech =/= freedom to an audience. Games fall into a whole other category.Roris0A

I've heard that term many times before... freedom of speech and an audience go hand in hand. What's the point of freedom of speech if you don't have anyone to speak to? And who exactly controls this "audience". Because it's definitely not constitutional for someone to have that kind of power..

[QUOTE="LordAndrew"]

[QUOTE="Super-Mario-Fan"]If it did exist, I would be able to say "Kill the president!" in a formal speech without any offenses whatsoever.Super-Mario-Fan

Freedom of speech does not cover that.

This isn't just the United States I'm talking about, but the entire world. Violent video games in general have always been a subject of controversy, and that stance will probably continue.

You do have an argument with the United States, but not every country gives you the right to free speech.

[QUOTE="Roris0A"]

[QUOTE="Sagacious_Tien"]Freedom of speech =/= freedom to an audience. Games fall into a whole other category.Sagacious_Tien

I've heard that term many times before... freedom of speech and an audience go hand in hand. What's the point of freedom of speech if you don't have anyone to speak to? And who exactly controls this "audience". Because it's definitely not constitutional for someone to have that kind of power..

that bolded, is pretty scary man. And many people also choose to "listen" thats why freedom of speech is there in the first place.. I think you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say though, the fact is that a few people in this country do have the power to control this "right to an audience" which they made up. Do we really have a choice on what gets said in the mainstream media? One example is that no one talks about the insanely dangerous drugs that are manufactered every year that actually make their patients worse. One is called prozac. and there are many more that get no media attention. Try getting a permit to start your own News Channel and you'll see how unfair this is.

Freedom of speech does not exist

Super-Mario-Fan

Aye, you're right: freedom of speech does not exist. Sometimes it's better that way, though: I wouldn't want to hear what some people are only allowed to think.

[QUOTE="Sagacious_Tien"][QUOTE="Roris0A"]

[QUOTE="Sagacious_Tien"]Freedom of speech =/= freedom to an audience. Games fall into a whole other category.Roris0A

I've heard that term many times before... freedom of speech and an audience go hand in hand. What's the point of freedom of speech if you don't have anyone to speak to? And who exactly controls this "audience". Because it's definitely not constitutional for someone to have that kind of power..

that bolded, is pretty scary man. And many people also choose to "listen" thats why freedom of speech is there in the first place.. I think you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say though, the fact is that a few people in this country do have the power to control this "right to an audience" which they made up. Do we really have a choice on what gets said in the mainstream media? One example is that no one talks about the insanely dangerous drugs that are manufactered every year that actually make their patients worse. One is called prozac. and there are many more that get no media attention. Try getting a permit to start your own News Channel and you'll see how unfair this is.

I'm with Saga. The media has that audience because people have proved time and time again that this is what they want to listen to. If the majority of people wanted to get their news from Rush Limbaugh or NPR those things would be mainstream. Influence starts small and builds up larger, freedom of speech does not automatically entitle anyone to some sort of nationwide soapbox where you can insist that other people hear you.

[QUOTE="Roris0A"][QUOTE="Sagacious_Tien"][QUOTE="Roris0A"]

[QUOTE="Sagacious_Tien"]Freedom of speech =/= freedom to an audience. Games fall into a whole other category.SophinaK

I've heard that term many times before... freedom of speech and an audience go hand in hand. What's the point of freedom of speech if you don't have anyone to speak to? And who exactly controls this "audience". Because it's definitely not constitutional for someone to have that kind of power..

that bolded, is pretty scary man. And many people also choose to "listen" thats why freedom of speech is there in the first place.. I think you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say though, the fact is that a few people in this country do have the power to control this "right to an audience" which they made up. Do we really have a choice on what gets said in the mainstream media? One example is that no one talks about the insanely dangerous drugs that are manufactered every year that actually make their patients worse. One is called prozac. and there are many more that get no media attention. Try getting a permit to start your own News Channel and you'll see how unfair this is.

I'm with Saga. The media has that audience because people have proved time and time again that this is what they want to listen to. If the majority of people wanted to get their news from Rush Limbaugh or NPR those things would be mainstream. Influence starts small and builds up larger, freedom of speech does not automatically entitle anyone to some sort of nationwide soapbox where you can insist that other people hear you.

We the people never had the choice in the first place.. There have always been a few mainstream networks even when TV first started because our government immiedately took control of them by issuing out liceneses to only a few rich individuals. So corporate power and our goverment were and are still and even more now, controlling the main source of information..

And also, an audience is all about freedom of speech. They both go together no matter how much people try to deny it. If I'm speaking freely to even one person, that's an audience.. Freedom of speech is speaking your opinion to outside people besides yourself. It's all about improving things.

When the constitution was written the main place for people to speak their opinions was exactly a soapbox, the commons. One famous place was called the "boston commons". And the rich and powerful did try to stop other people from speaking their views and that's why our fouding fathers wrote the first admendment.. And now that soapbox are mainstream networks of today. And like I stated earlier we can already see how criminal this is, not only do individuals not get to excercise their freedom of speech but we supposedly want to hear more about Britney Spears than something like a drug being completely ineffective thus ripping off thousands of Americans.

Everyone's freedom stop where it neighbor freedom starts.I am pretty comfortable with that.

Honestly, it is a comon sense thingy. Everyone would understand why someone saying: "Kill the president" deserve to spent time in jail. I am against money lawsuits however, jail time is the only acceptable situation IMO. Someone sueing shouldn't get 1 penny. This is the only way to make sure peoples are not abusing that lawsuit feature...

Freedom is not an excuse to allow crimes which goes against the humans rights. A president has the right to live in security, and anyone openly going against this human right is indeed a criminal. Canada has many flaws, but the human rights chart done by Canadian Gov is great.

While the discussion being formed in this thread isn't problematic, the simple fact remains that this thread drifted so far off from having anything to do with games, that it's simply too far off topic to keep going.

Feel free to continue this discussion further on the Off Topic Boards, though.