Offtopic
03 Jan 2021, 3:22am
Rebecca HailAs Amata pointed out above, the legal framework has changed. Video games have been recognized as a form of art in Germany.
The legal framework hasn't changed at all. Whether something qualifies as art in Germany has always been decided on a case-by-case basis, and still is. Also, calling USK a system of self-regulation is deceptive. The developers don't get to regulate themselves. They have to submit their work to USK and pay a fee for the privilege of having appointed "experts" apply their political bias on the law. If those experts refuse to rate the work for whatever reason, it can't be sold in Germany even to adults.
So what exactly changed in 2018? Wikipedia has the juicy details:
In August 2018, the German government reversed this ruling as a result of a ruling from April 2018. The web-based game Bundesfighter II Turbo was released prior to the September 2017 elections, which included parodies of the candidates fighting each other; this included Alexander Gauland, who had a special move that involved Swastika imagery. When this was noticed by public authorities, they began prosecution of the game in December 2017, submitting it to the Public Prosecutor General's office for review based on the Wolfenstein 3D decision. The Attorney General declined to consider the game illegal under Section 86a, stating that the 1998 ruling was outdated; since then, USK had adopted age ratings for video games, and that there was no reason not to consider video games as art within the social adequacy clause. As a result, the Supreme Youth Protection Authority of the Federal States adapted the Attorney General's ruling to be applicable for all video games within Germany, and subsequently the USK announced in August 2018 this change; USK will still review all games to judge if the use of imagery under Section 86a remains within the social adequacy clause and deny ratings to those that fail to meet this allowance.
Dig a little deeper and you'll find out that the game "Bundesfighter II Turbo" was developed by Germany's state-owned media companies ARD/ZDF, funded by taxpayers.
Turns out swastikas in a video game get a pass in Germany if the government produces the game with the intent to smear an opposition party ahead of an upcoming election. "It's OK if we do it."
This is a textbook example of political censorship.
03 Jan 2021, 4:33am
SakashiroRebecca HailAs Amata pointed out above, the legal framework has changed. Video games have been recognized as a form of art in Germany.
The legal framework hasn't changed at all. Whether something qualifies as art in Germany has always been decided on a case-by-case basis, and still is. Also, calling USK a system of self-regulation is deceptive. The developers don't get to regulate themselves. They have to submit their work to USK and pay a fee for the privilege of having appointed "experts" apply their political bias on the law. If those experts refuse to rate the work for whatever reason, it can't be sold in Germany even to adults.
So what exactly changed in 2018? Wikipedia has the juicy details:
In August 2018, the German government reversed this ruling as a result of a ruling from April 2018. The web-based game Bundesfighter II Turbo was released prior to the September 2017 elections, which included parodies of the candidates fighting each other; this included Alexander Gauland, who had a special move that involved Swastika imagery. When this was noticed by public authorities, they began prosecution of the game in December 2017, submitting it to the Public Prosecutor General's office for review based on the Wolfenstein 3D decision. The Attorney General declined to consider the game illegal under Section 86a, stating that the 1998 ruling was outdated; since then, USK had adopted age ratings for video games, and that there was no reason not to consider video games as art within the social adequacy clause. As a result, the Supreme Youth Protection Authority of the Federal States adapted the Attorney General's ruling to be applicable for all video games within Germany, and subsequently the USK announced in August 2018 this change; USK will still review all games to judge if the use of imagery under Section 86a remains within the social adequacy clause and deny ratings to those that fail to meet this allowance.
Dig a little deeper and you'll find out that the game "Bundesfighter II Turbo" was developed by Germany's state-owned media companies ARD/ZDF, funded by taxpayers.
Turns out swastikas in a video game get a pass in Germany if the government produces the game with the intent to smear an opposition party ahead of an upcoming election. "It's OK if we do it."
This is a textbook example of political censorship.
Oh yeah, that...
in this case it is important to know additional context about Gauland's party, the AfD:
Björn Höcke, one of the founders of AfD, gave a speech in Dresden in January 2017, in which, referring to the Holocaust memorial in Berlin, he stated that "we Germans are the only people in the world who have planted a memorial of shame in the heart of their capital", and suggested that Germans "need to make a 180 degree change in their politics of commemoration".
The speech was widely criticized as antisemitic, among others by Jewish leaders in Germany. Within the AfD, he was described by his party chairwoman, Frauke Petry, as a "burden to the party", while other members of the party, such as Alexander Gauland, said that they found no antisemitism in the speech.
As a result of his speech, the leaders of the AfD have asked in February 2017 that Björn Höcke be expelled from the party. The arbitration committee of the AfD in Thuringia is set to rule on the leaders' request.[185] As of August 2017, Höcke remains "a part of the soul of the AfD".
Source
It was not the first or the last time a member of the AfD made a racist, antisemitic and/or sexist remark, and it's well known that a lot of members of the AfD have contacts to the German neo-nazi scene. The use of the swastika was therefor covered as 'art' since the entire game was satirical. Even chancellor Merkel was not portrayed very favourable:
03 Jan 2021, 8:19am
SakashiroRebecca HailAs Amata pointed out above, the legal framework has changed. Video games have been recognized as a form of art in Germany.
The legal framework hasn't changed at all. Whether something qualifies as art in Germany has always been decided on a case-by-case basis, and still is. Also, calling USK a system of self-regulation is deceptive. The developers don't get to regulate themselves. They have to submit their work to USK and pay a fee for the privilege of having appointed "experts" apply their political bias on the law. If those experts refuse to rate the work for whatever reason, it can't be sold in Germany even to adults.
So what exactly changed in 2018? Wikipedia has the juicy details:
In August 2018, the German government reversed this ruling as a result of a ruling from April 2018. The web-based game Bundesfighter II Turbo was released prior to the September 2017 elections, which included parodies of the candidates fighting each other; this included Alexander Gauland, who had a special move that involved Swastika imagery. When this was noticed by public authorities, they began prosecution of the game in December 2017, submitting it to the Public Prosecutor General's office for review based on the Wolfenstein 3D decision. The Attorney General declined to consider the game illegal under Section 86a, stating that the 1998 ruling was outdated; since then, USK had adopted age ratings for video games, and that there was no reason not to consider video games as art within the social adequacy clause. As a result, the Supreme Youth Protection Authority of the Federal States adapted the Attorney General's ruling to be applicable for all video games within Germany, and subsequently the USK announced in August 2018 this change; USK will still review all games to judge if the use of imagery under Section 86a remains within the social adequacy clause and deny ratings to those that fail to meet this allowance.
Dig a little deeper and you'll find out that the game "Bundesfighter II Turbo" was developed by Germany's state-owned media companies ARD/ZDF, funded by taxpayers.
Turns out swastikas in a video game get a pass in Germany if the government produces the game with the intent to smear an opposition party ahead of an upcoming election. "It's OK if we do it."
This is a textbook example of political censorship.
The Attorney General declined to consider the game illegal under Section 86a, stating that the 1998 ruling was outdated; since then, USK had adopted age ratings for video games, and that there was no reason not to consider video games as art within the social adequacy clause. As a result, the Supreme Youth Protection Authority of the Federal States adapted the Attorney General's ruling to be applicable for all video games within Germany
There's the change in the legal framework, taken from your own source. This is obviously not codified law, the precedence from 1998 is officially still valid and will be until it actually comes to a new lawsuit over this topic. Nonetheless, the fact that the state attorney refused to take action over it, is clearly indicating that perspectives have changed a lot in the last 20 years. This becomes quite obvious when you read the german wikipedia entry on the USK:
Seit August 2018 ist auch eine USK-Einstufung von Computerspielen möglich, wenn diese verfassungswidrige Symbole wie das Hakenkreuz enthalten. Hintergrund ist eine geänderte Rechtsauffassung der OLJB, die nunmehr davon ausgeht, dass die in § 86 Abs. 3 StGB festgeschriebene Sozialadäquanzklausel nicht nur für althergebrachte Medien wie Filme, sondern auch für Computerspiele gilt.
It roughly translates to: "Since August 2018 a USK game age rating of videogames is possible, if those contain unconstitutional symbols like the swastika. Background is a changed interpretation of law by the OLJB [that's what's called the Supreme Youth Protection Authority in the source you quote] which no longer assumes that the in § 86 Abs. 3 StGB codified social adequacy clause is only valid for traditional forms of medias like movies, but also for video games."
The only notion I get from your text is that you're fundamentally misinformed.
The USK itself is a company that is owned by the association of german game developers and provides the audit for the game age ratings, the decision about the game age rating is then made together with a representative from the Federal Youth Office (I have literally no idea what the official translation for Landesjugendbehörde is). If the USK refuses to rate something, it is not forbidden, it can be sold. If the BPJM puts it on the Index, then it can't be sold any more.
I'm amazed that you "dug deeper" about "Bundesfighter II Turbo", yet somehow missed the entirety of the Browser Ballett and that it quite obviously is a parody of Streetfighter II Turbo. It is quite obviously a satirical art project and considering how members of the government then and now are portrayed in there, this would be more likely to be a candidate for something that'd be forbidden altogether if there actually was a political censorship for video games in Germany.
ARD and ZDF are not funded by taxes and it is a lot more complicated than "they are owned by the state". Public Broadcasters in Germany are funded by a broadcasting fee which is collected separately, the tax office has nothing to do with it. The only exception is DW, which is funded by tax money.
You can make a case for political censorship in Germany, because Germany has the necessary laws and tools to censor groups on the (very) far left and (very) far right of the spectrum, some of them, like the ban of unconstitutional symbols, are quite controversial abroad. If you actually want to do that, political censorship in video games shouldn't be the hill you choose to die on though.
03 Jan 2021, 12:13pm
See, the thing is that us Germans do not consider the freedom of speech the most precious virtue of a democracy, but...
Article 1
[Human dignity – Human rights – Legally binding force of basic rights]
(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
(3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law.
That very first virtue is also the reason why the following articles in German penal code exist:
Section 130
Incitement of masses
(1) Whoever, in a manner which is suitable for causing a disturbance of the public peace,
1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origin, against sections of the population or individuals on account of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or sections of the population, or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them or
2. violates the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming one of the aforementioned groups, sections of the population or individuals on account of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or sections of the population
incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term of between three months and five years.
(2) Whoever
1. disseminates material (section 11 (3)) or makes it available to the public, or offers, supplies or makes available to a person under 18 years of age material (section 11 (3)) which
a) incites hatred against one of the groups referred to in subsection (1) no. 1, sections of the population or individuals on account of their belonging to one of the groups referred to in subsection (1) no. 1, or sections of the population,
b) calls for violent or arbitrary measures against one of the persons or bodies of persons referred to in letter (a) or
c) attacks the human dignity of one of the persons or bodies of persons referred to in letter (a) by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming them,
2. makes content referred to in no. 1 (a) to (c) available to a person under 18 years of age or to the public through broadcasting or telemedia services or
3. produces, purchases, supplies, stocks, offers, advertises or undertakes to import or export material (section 11 (3)) of such content referred to in no. 1 (a) to (c) in order to use it or parts obtained from it within the meaning of no. 1 or 2 or to facilitate such use by another
incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine.
(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law in a manner which is suitable for causing a disturbance of the public peace incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine.
(4) Whoever publicly or in a meeting disturbs the public peace in a manner which violates the dignity of the victims by approving of, glorifying or justifying National Socialist tyranny and arbitrary rule incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine.
(5) Subsection (2) no. 1 and no. 3 also applies to material (section 11 (3)) of such content referred to in subsections (3) and (4). Whoever makes content referred to in subsections (3) and (4) available to a person under 18 years of age or available to the public through broadcasting or telemedia services incurs the same penalty specified in subsection (2) no. 2.
(6) In the cases under subsection (2) nos. 1 and 2, also in conjunction with subsection (5), the attempt is punishable.
(7) In the cases under subsection (2), also in conjunction with subsection (5), and in the cases under subsections (3) and (4), section 86 (3) applies accordingly.
Section 185
Insult
The penalty for insult is imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine and, if the insult is committed by means of an assault, imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine.
Section 186
Malicious gossip (üble Nachrede)
Whoever asserts or disseminates a fact about another person which is suitable for degrading that person or negatively affecting public opinion about that person, unless this fact can be proved to be true, incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine and, if the offence was committed publicly or by disseminating material (section 11 (3)), a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine.
Section 187
Defamation
Whoever, despite knowing better, asserts or disseminates an untrue fact about another person which is suitable for degrading that person or negatively affecting public opinion about that person or endangering said person’s creditworthiness incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, and, if the act was committed publicly, in a meeting or by disseminating material (section 11 (3)), a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine.
This means that "freedom of speech" in Germany means that you can say whatever you want as long as it is not intentionally harmful to others and/or does not contradict undeniable facts (for example denying the holocaust... it is a hard fact that this shit happened)
After that the following come first:
Article 2
[Personal freedoms]
(1) Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law.
(2) Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law.
Article 3
[Equality before the law]
(1) All persons shall be equal before the law.
(2) Men and women shall have equal rights. The state shall promote the actual implementation of equal rights for women and men and take steps to eliminate disadvantages that now exist.
(3) No person shall be favoured or disfavoured because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith or religious or political opinions. No person shall be disfavoured because of disability.
Article 4
[Freedom of faith and conscience]
(1) Freedom of faith and of conscience and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed shall be inviolable.
(2) The undisturbed practice of religion shall be guaranteed.
(3) No person shall be compelled against his conscience to render military service involving the use of arms. Details shall be regulated by a federal law.
Freedom of speech is 'only' ranked #5 here:
Article 5
[Freedom of expression, arts and sciences]
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(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 honour.
(3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.
03 Jan 2021, 12:16pm
Amata LireinOh yeah, that...
in this case it is important to know additional context about Gauland's party, the AfD:
Funny how there's always some "context" to excuse political opportunism. Fun fact: If you depict Angela Merkel with a swastika, German courts will convict and fine you. Look up the names Günter Wangerin and Hans Burkhard Nix for more info. Apparently when it comes to freedom of speech in Germany, a different set of rules applies to those at the top. But I guess double standards are still better than no standards at all, right?
Rebecca HailThe only notion I get from your text is that you're fundamentally misinformed.
The notion I get from your text is that you're frantically moving the goal posts. First you denied that political censorship exists in Germany, then you went on to justify it, and now...
Rebecca HailIf you actually want to do that, political censorship in video games shouldn't be the hill you choose to die on though.
... you're saying it's actually not that important. I guess that means we've entered stage three:
Anyway, your question...
Rebecca HailAnd what political reasons would that be?
... has been answered. Let's move on, shall we?
03 Jan 2021, 1:10pm
Sakashiro
Funny how there's always some "context" to excuse political opportunism. Fun fact: If you depict Angela Merkel with a swastika, German courts will convict and fine you. Look up the names Günter Wangerin and Hans Burkhard Nix for more info. Apparently when it comes to freedom of speech in Germany, a different set of rules applies to those at the top. But I guess double standards are still better than no standards at all, right?
Looked up both names. One leads to a rejected complaint at the ECHR and the other to a obscure art blog without further information. If you want to use those names as arguments, provide a link to something meaningful.
"Fun fact: If you depict Angela Merkel with a swastika, German courts will convict and fine you." I suppose you're referring to Hans Burkhard Nix here, whose complaint about the decisions of the German courts was }]rejected by the ECHR. The court fined him for the use of unconstitutional symbols, not for their use on Angela Merkel, he could've taken a random person from his neighbourhood or just posted the symbol and would've been fined as well. You try to spin this into something it isn't.
Your points on freedom of speech in Germany are just polemic. You don't actually know what the situation in Germany is and how to properly assess it.
Sakashiro
Rebecca HailThe only notion I get from your text is that you're fundamentally misinformed.
The notion I get from your text is that you're frantically moving the goal posts. First you denied that political censorship exists in Germany, then you went on to justify it, and now...
At no point did I deny that political censorship exists in Germany. I denied that games get censored for political reasons, because that is simply not the case in Germany. At this point I'm starting to doubt your reading comprehension.
Considering how much inaccurate or flatout false information you crammed into the post I responded to and how you didn't respond to a single point I made about that, it is reasonable to say that you are misinformed.
Sakashiro
Rebecca HailIf you actually want to do that, political censorship in video games shouldn't be the hill you choose to die on though.
... you're saying it's actually not that important. I guess that means we've entered stage three:
[img=850x400]https://i.imgur.com/P1xJJlV.jpg[/img]
Same point as above. It's dumb to die on this hill because you can't make a case for political censorship in terms of video games in Germany. I don't appreciate your attempts to twist my words.
I'd like to remind you of your original point: "That's one of the downsides of digital distribution: content can be retroactively altered. Not only for legal but also political reasons.". You failed to provide a single example for this, the only one who did provide examples for retroactively altered content was Artie. Instead you went on to claim that Germany censors video games for political reasons, then you went on to claim that I am the one shifting the goal posts, which I find a tad ironic at this stage.
Anyway, your question...
Rebecca HailAnd what political reasons would that be?
... has been answered. Let's move on, shall we?
Funny, because apart from "woke culture" you haven't really answered that question. Neither Germany nor China would fit as an example for "woke culture" either, both countries are a lot, but certainly not woke.[/quote]
04 Jan 2021, 8:58am
Rebecca HailLooked up both names. One leads to a rejected complaint at the ECHR and the other to a obscure art blog without further information. If you want to use those names as arguments, provide a link to something meaningful.
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/hans-burkhard-nix-v-germany/
The case concerned Hans Bukhard Nix, a blogger based in Germany. He blogs on matters concerning economics, politics, and society. In February 2014, he had been convicted for using symbols of unconstitutional organizations for having published a picture of Angela Merkel in Nazi uniform.
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/panorama/angela-merkel-in-nazi-uniform-mit-hakenkreuz-armbinde-aktionskuenstler-guenter-wangerin-in-zweiter-instanz-verurteilt/9306622.html
The artist Günter Wangerin (68) has been convicted again for a poster showing Chancellor Angela Merkel in a Nazi uniform with a swastika armband. Wangerin had displayed the poster in a public protest against the austerity requirements for the EU crisis countries. The Munich Regional Court confirmed his sentence of 3,000 euros in the appeal process on Wednesday for using Nazi symbols.
{...}
His action was intended to draw a connection with the crimes of the Nazi regime in occupied Greece. He quoted the Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis, according to which Merkel was forcing “new Gauleiter” on his compatriots.
The district court upheld the judgment of the Munich District Court, which had fined him for using symbols of unconstitutional organizations. Section 86 of the Criminal Code allows symbols of the Nazi regime to be used if this serves art or reporting on current affairs. But this exception does not apply here, said the presiding judge.
Rebecca HailAt no point did I deny that political censorship exists in Germany.
Stage four: "I always said so."
Rebecca HailI'd like to remind you of your original point: "That's one of the downsides of digital distribution: content can be retroactively altered. Not only for legal but also political reasons.". You failed to provide a single example for this, the only one who did provide examples for retroactively altered content was Artie.
I provided examples of books being altered. You said this would only create multiple editions of the book. But that's exactly the point: the book exists on paper. If content is distributed via DRM-protected downloads only, it will be much harder to preserve in its original form. It can be altered at any point (as happened in the case of GTA IV, albeit for different reasons) or taken down (aka. "canceled") entirely.
04 Jan 2021, 9:53am
SakashiroRebecca HailLooked up both names. One leads to a rejected complaint at the ECHR and the other to a obscure art blog without further information. If you want to use those names as arguments, provide a link to something meaningful.
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/hans-burkhard-nix-v-germany/
The case concerned Hans Bukhard Nix, a blogger based in Germany. He blogs on matters concerning economics, politics, and society. In February 2014, he had been convicted for using symbols of unconstitutional organizations for having published a picture of Angela Merkel in Nazi uniform.
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/panorama/angela-merkel-in-nazi-uniform-mit-hakenkreuz-armbinde-aktionskuenstler-guenter-wangerin-in-zweiter-instanz-verurteilt/9306622.html
The artist Günter Wangerin (68) has been convicted again for a poster showing Chancellor Angela Merkel in a Nazi uniform with a swastika armband. Wangerin had displayed the poster in a public protest against the austerity requirements for the EU crisis countries. The Munich Regional Court confirmed his sentence of 3,000 euros in the appeal process on Wednesday for using Nazi symbols.
{...}
His action was intended to draw a connection with the crimes of the Nazi regime in occupied Greece. He quoted the Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis, according to which Merkel was forcing “new Gauleiter” on his compatriots.
The district court upheld the judgment of the Munich District Court, which had fined him for using symbols of unconstitutional organizations. Section 86 of the Criminal Code allows symbols of the Nazi regime to be used if this serves art or reporting on current affairs. But this exception does not apply here, said the presiding judge.
Taken from your own edu link:
The Court concluded by reiterating that the historical experience of Germany was a weighty factor to be taken into account when considering cases involving Nazi symbols, and whether there exists a pressing social need for interfering with an individual’s right to freedom of expression in this context. The Court concluded that the domestic courts had adduced relevant and sufficient reasons and did not overstep their margin of appreciation in the present case. Therefore, the interference was found to be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and “necessary in a democratic society”.
Again, it's a well known fact that the use of unconstitutional symbols such as swastikas and other Nazi associated symbols, like the Hitler Gruß, is restricted in Germany. A use despite that transgression that doesn't fall under an established exemption is punished when it's being reported. There's no double standard like you claimed and that you need to resort to a case from 2014 is also telling that you don't know what you're talking about. As I already said in the last post.
I notice that you once again fail to respond to the majority of points made and don't even attempt to address the falsehoods you put into your posts. At this point, you're just arguing in bad faith and it shows.
Rebecca HailAt no point did I deny that political censorship exists in Germany.
Stage four: "I always said so."
Your attempts at twisting the conversation are pathetic and fooling no one. You had no point with that picture in your last post and you have no point now. Again, I'm starting to doubt your reading comprehension because anyone who reads the conversation can clearly see that I did not deny that at any stage. I denied that video games get censored for political reasons.
Rebecca HailI'd like to remind you of your original point: "That's one of the downsides of digital distribution: content can be retroactively altered. Not only for legal but also political reasons.". You failed to provide a single example for this, the only one who did provide examples for retroactively altered content was Artie.
I provided examples of books being altered. You said this would only create multiple editions of the book. But that's exactly the point: the book exists on paper. If content is distributed via DRM-protected downloads only, it will be much harder to preserve in its original form. It can be altered at any point (as happened in the case of GTA IV, albeit for different reasons) or taken down (aka. "canceled") entirely.
"retroactively altered". You provided the example of woke culture ATTEMPTING to rewrite Huckleberry Finn without the n-word. And that only works because the book in question is in the public domain at this point. Try to rewrite and release a book that is not and see how well that goes over.
SakashiroRebecca HailI honestly can't see "woke culture" having enough influence in the gaming industry to make a company retroactively change a game.
There have been attempts to sanitize classic works of literature, e.g. editing the N-word out of Mark Twain's "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", so I guess it's just a matter of time. CP77 in particular was attacked by SJWs before it was even released: for sexism, racism, transphobia, cultural appropriation, etc. Some countries, e.g. China and Germany, allow only sanitized versions of video games to be sold.
It's not like I don't understand the worry of content being altered retroactively, I just can't see companies doing it retroactively for political reasons. They might change something because it's bad PR for them or because a legal issue with another party arises from a part of the content (such as the music mentioned in GTA V), but not because they want to promote or hamper a specific political ideology. The difference lies in the intent. That doesn't mean that it's rare for games to provide political commentary or to be politicized, but the only country powerful and willing enough to force changes retroactively into a game for political reasons is China. And even then it's just a version of the game, just like the cut, low-violence versions sold in Germany are just versions.
Last edit: 04 Jan 2021, 11:53am
04 Jan 2021, 10:03am
SakashiroI provided examples of books being altered. You said this would only create multiple editions of the book. But that's exactly the point: the book exists on paper. If content is distributed via DRM-protected downloads only, it will be much harder to preserve in its original form. It can be altered at any point (as happened in the case of GTA IV, albeit for different reasons) or taken down (aka. "canceled") entirely.
True, but luckily CP2077 is available on GoG, where altering existing installations is impossible. Distribution could of course be stopped or altered.
04 Jan 2021, 12:38pm
Rebecca HailThere's no double standard like you claimed and that you need to resort to a case from 2014 is also telling that you don't know what you're talking about.
I provided two cases of private citizens depicting Angela Merkel along with a Nazi symbol. Those led to convictions and fines.
And I provided another case in which a state-owned media corporation did the same thing with an opposition politician. No one was convicted, no one was fined. On the contrary: suddenly the existing legal framework was considered "outdated" and no longer applicable.
And here you are, telling me that this is not a double standard. Amata even provided some "context" explaining why one of those two public figures deserved to be smeared and why consequently the people doing the smearing deserved to be above the law.
Rebecca HailAgain, it's a well known fact that the use of unconstitutional symbols such as swastikas and other Nazi associated symbols, like the Hitler Gruß, is restricted in Germany.
Again, it depends. In 2017, German magazine "Stern" put a montage of Donald Trump doing the Nazi salute on their cover. As far as I know, it had no legal consequences for them. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Apparently in Germany everything depends on who you are and whom you are targeting. There appears to be no rule of law applying to everyone equally. And, as Amata explained, freedom of speech ranks rather low on the list of constitutional rights of Germans, so maybe these things shouldn't surprise anyone.
04 Jan 2021, 1:42pm
SakashiroRebecca HailThere's no double standard like you claimed and that you need to resort to a case from 2014 is also telling that you don't know what you're talking about.
I provided two cases of private citizens depicting Angela Merkel along with a Nazi symbol. Those led to convictions and fines.
And the depiction of Angela Merkel had nothing to do with it. You consistently mentioning her in this context is just you intentionally trying to create a false impression. Both citizens violated the law, where brought in front of a court for it and the sentence was then confirmed by higher instances in Germany and the ECHR.
And I provided another case in which a state-owned media corporation did the same thing with an opposition politician. No one was convicted, no one was fined. On the contrary: suddenly the existing legal framework was considered "outdated" and no longer applicable.
You are simplifying this again. Saying that ARD and ZDF are state owned is a half-truth and the ownership of these public broadcasters is not easily explained. Nonetheless, the game in question was not produced by the ARD, it was produced by a private company and obviously an art project. The entire "ban" of those symbols in video games is based on a single verdict from 1998, which has been considered obsolete for a long time and not just suddenly. The reason the legal framework changed with this particular game, is because this particular game was taken to court over it and not self-censored by the publisher in advance. To imply that the ARD or even the government influenced the justice system over this is just ridiculous and there is no evidence for it. Whether the usage of an unconstitutional symbol is allowed or not, is solely decided by the justice system on which the government has very little influence.
And here you are, telling me that this is not a double standard. Amata even provided some "context" explaining why one of those two public figures deserved to be smeared and why consequently the people doing the smearing deserved to be above the law.
You not understanding German law is not a double standard. Amata explained why Gauland was portrayed in this particular way. That the game in question portrays Merkel and politicians from the entire political spectrum in a very unfavourable light doesn't seem to bother you either.
They're not above the law either. The general attorney reviewed the case and then decided against investigating it, due to the outdated ruling. If one of the depicted politicians themselves had decided to open a defamation lawsuit against the developers/publishers of the game, the whole thing would've been reviewed.
Rebecca HailAgain, it's a well known fact that the use of unconstitutional symbols such as swastikas and other Nazi associated symbols, like the Hitler Gruß, is restricted in Germany.
Again, it depends. In 2017, German magazine "Stern" put a montage of Donald Trump doing the Nazi salute on their cover. As far as I know, it had no legal consequences for them. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The "Stern" was heavily criticized over this, but ultimately this cover did not violate the restriction of unconstitutional symbol since it was covered by an exception and by freedom of art. Don't even attempt to equate this to the two cases you've cited earlier, they're not remotely the same thing. If you want to know why, go and actually read the verdict from the ECHR you linked.
Apparently in Germany everything depends on who you are and whom you are targeting. There appears to be no rule of law applying to everyone equally. And, as Amata explained, freedom of speech ranks rather low on the list of constitutional rights of Germans, so maybe these things shouldn't surprise anyone.
You're just being polemic again and repeating falsehoods. You've proven over and over again that you don't know what you're talking about.
04 Jan 2021, 2:42pm
Rebecca HailThe reason the legal framework changed with this particular game, is because this particular game was taken to court over it and not self-censored by the publisher in advance.
That is not true. The case never went to a court. The state attorney simply refused to prosecute the matter and even dismissed a complaint that was subsequently filed. For someone accusing me of spreading falsehoods, lacking reading comprehension etc., you are surprisingly light on facts.
Which means the 1998 court decision wasn't actually overturned but is still in effect today. The legal framework hasn't changed at all. It just gets applied in an opportunistic fashion, the way one might expect from a banana republic.
But hey, I get it: you find nothing wrong with that. So let's leave it at that. This is not a civics class.
04 Jan 2021, 2:48pm
SakashiroRebecca HailThe reason the legal framework changed with this particular game, is because this particular game was taken to court over it and not self-censored by the publisher in advance.
That is not true. The case never went to a court. The state attorney simply refused to prosecute the matter and even dismissed a complaint that was subsequently filed. For someone accusing me of spreading falsehoods, lacking reading comprehension etc., you are surprisingly light on facts.
Alright, sorry for making that mistake. It was attempted to take it to court, which was declined on the basis of outdated precedence. As I already wrote posts ago:
Rebecca Hail
There's the change in the legal framework, taken from your own source. This is obviously not codified law, the precedence from 1998 is officially still valid and will be until it actually comes to a new lawsuit over this topic. Nonetheless, the fact that the state attorney refused to take action over it, is clearly indicating that perspectives have changed a lot in the last 20 years. This becomes quite obvious when you read the german wikipedia entry on the USK:
Which means the 1998 court decision wasn't actually overturned but is still in effect today. The legal framework hasn't changed at all. It just gets applied in an opportunistic fashion, the way one might expect from a banana republic.
But hey, I get it: you find nothing wrong with that. So let's leave it at that. This is not a civics class.
Lmao, we can stop this now if you want, it's clear that you're unable and unwilling to lead a proper discussion. By declaring an entire country a banana republic over a law you don't understand is just ridiculing yourself. That way you can stop cherry picking too.