![[FSF Associate Member]](http://www.notsosoft.net/images/getButton){kind=small}
The Slow Decay of Freedom in “Free Countries”
Well, as most have probably noted by now, I’m a bit of a nut for freedom. I love the idea that I can do whatever I want as long as I’m not causing physical damage, property damage, property loss (read PROPERTY LOSS, not “potential revenue loss”), or causing public unrest.
Paramount to those, as I’m sure you’ve figured out, is freedom of speech and expression. Last night I posted an entry about Bill O’Reilly demanding that web sites remove content that he found offensive. Well, it doesn’t just stop with Mr. O’Reilly.
As some of you may be aware, Rockstar Games–makers of the Grand Theft Auto series and Manhunt–had their soon-to-release title “Manhunt 2″ banned in the UK by the “British Board of Film Classification.” This means that the game will not be sold in the UK. Today I’ve seen that Rockstar has filed an appeal… good for them.
Now, what do you care about a video game you may ask? You may not, but that doesn’t change the fact that Rockstar is having its right to sell their media–which is recognized by most as a culturally relevant art form–in the UK denied due to censorship. In the US, we’re having similar problems come up with the ESRB. The ESRB is starting to actually give trouble to game producers if there is user-created online content available for the game, as users may create offensive content to share. So evidently it is the game producer’s fault that we live in a world with teenage boys.
We’re all having our rights to express ourselves freely removed one at a time, and while a lot of people are pointing the finger at the United States saying “only in America” and “it’s all Bush’s fault,” we’re all slowly becoming numb to the problem at hand. Censorship in media is absolutely nothing new. The US government has been censoring media for decades now, and I suspect the UK has been doing much of the same, along with several other governments around the world.
Let’s remember, this isn’t like the Snoop Dogg ban where Snoop Dogg actually engaged in criminal activity, Rockstar Games has done nothing but produce a video game for the enjoyment of its users and the profit of the company. They didn’t get busted for possession, they didn’t get caught with illegal firearms, they just made a video game. Whether or not you find the content of the game offensive or not, it is hard to deny that this is nothing but a classic case of government censorship due to uppity politicians attempting to enforce their moral standards on society.
Now I like moral standards, and I’m all for folks having strong moral fiber, but my moral fiber is none of the government’s business. It is not up to the government to tell me what video games I should and should not play, and it is not up to the government to tell video game producers which games they can and cannot make.
This needs to stop, because while this is happening, the rest of the world is watching. We tell certain parts of the world that they shouldn’t force their religious values onto their population, yet we’re doing this. We’re telling our children to be tolerant of other ideas and open-minded in cultural settings, yet we’re telling Rockstar that their cultural contribution is not welcome here. And it’s not just video games either.
This is happening in music, in video games, in movies, and in software. The Free Software movement has been coming under more and more fire from proprietary software vendors who are trying to stifle our ability to contribute to culture and society by the use of patents and restrictive licensing and “intellectual property” lawsuits. I don’t know about you, but this all makes me sick.
Come on, let’s be free countries again. Let’s reject the censorship and encourage cultural contributions even if we disagree or find it offensive. People and companies should be free to speak their minds and contribute to society regardless of their content and their message. That’s what it means to be free.
Update: It seems as though there’s been some revelation into the real purpose behind the Department of Homeland Security as well. Here I thought that DHS was supposed to be “combating terrorism,” yet they’re really just a copyright enforcement agency. Strange, I thought that was the FBI’s job. I also find it interesting that this article (posted below) takes account of a DHS modchip raid. The DHS executed several search warrants to find and confiscate mod chips, and arrest the users and sellers of mod chips. So, now as I said before, we are all slowly becoming less free. The DHS claims that mod chips are only used to “pirate” (share) video games, but that’s actually not the case at all. GameCube Linux and Wii require mod chips in order to run Linux and other programs that it would be perfectly legal to run on these machines.
I condemn the Department of Homeland Security for this act of terrorism.
Here’s the article: http://kotaku.com/gaming/piracy/massive-mod-chip-raid-sweeps-nation-285007.php
Popularity: 13%
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, August 1st, 2007 at 14:52 and is filed under Free Software, Politics, Ranting.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Stumble it!
As I understand it, DHS encompasses the FBI and several other security-related agencies.
Yeah I hear yah loud and clear on us losing our freedoms!
Thank God, we have Ron Paul running for President!
I’ve never read something that I agree with more, you sure would like Ron Paul. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
I don;t agree with all he has to say, but I liek his ideas.
Department of Revenue Security
On freedoms: thank goodness the UK hasn’t gone as far with a few things as the US has and we can have TV shows that are more than sueable in the States, such as QI or Never Mind the Buzzcocks
And as for re: David Thomas and Jeremy: Ron Paul is a sane drop in the Republican Party and I’m really glad that someone like that is running for president
I would vote Obama or Kucinich now if I were an American citizen, though.
“This needs to stop, because while this is happening, the rest of the world is watching. We tell certain parts of the world that they shouldn’t force their religious values onto their population, yet we’re doing this. We’re telling our children to be tolerant of other ideas and open-minded in cultural settings, yet we’re telling Rockstar that their cultural contribution is not welcome here.”
You say that people forcing their values onto others is wrong. Yet, here you are, trying to rally the troops to force your values onto others.
By the sounds of it, you want to be able to do anything you desire, and afford others that same right. However, if people exercise the freedom to live how they choose, and their choices offend your sensibilities, then, all of a sudden, you’re atop your soap box yelling to the world that these people shouldn’t be allowed the freedom to live how they desire, only the freedom to live how you desire them to.
Do you see the hypocrisy and contradiction here? This illogic strikes to the core of every piece of FSF/GPL-licensed software, and every argument postured by morally relativist liberals.
Wow! I’m a morally relativist liberal? I don’t think so. You could probably get away with calling me a liberal, but I’m absolutely not morally relativist. I am a strong believer in Christ Jesus, and my morals are STRONGLY founded there. My faith in Christ dictates that I support a strong stance on freedom. Without freedom there is no choice, and choosing masters is not freedom. People must be able to freely choose what they do with their lives without government interference.
Please take your right-wing propaganda elsewhere.
“Wow! I’m a morally relativist liberal? I don’t think so.”
You don’t think so, eh? Well, let’s see…
“… Let’s reject the censorship and encourage cultural contributions even if we disagree or find it offensive. …
Sounds like the thinking of a moral relativist to me.
“People must be able to freely choose what they do with their lives without government interference.”
Hmmm… are you sure you’re not infected with moral relativism? Maybe just a little?
“I am a strong believer in Christ Jesus…”
You don’t sound like it; you sound like a moral relativist.
Hey, just because I think folks should be allowed to live in a free country doesn’t mean I’m morally relative. You got any better arguments than that? That one can’t really hold water.
I never said that we should approve of everything that everybody says, I’m merely saying that as a society, we should allow everybody to be heard and allow everybody to contribute.
What Goldhammer fails to recognize is that deciding and acting on moral standards is the responsibility of the people, not the government. Placing that responsibility on the people where it belongs and criticizing governments for encroaching on free speech does make one a moral relativist in the least.
Correction to my last post: should read “does not make one…”
We should consider the following. If we allowed our governments to limit our free speech based on what offends them, we might not be allowed to express Christian values either. If we value our right to express values that others disagree with, we MUST defend the right of others to express things that we don’t agree with. That doesn’t mean we approve of what they say, only of their right to say it. There’s an enormous difference.
Well said.
“I’m merely saying that as a society, we should allow everybody to be heard and allow everybody to contribute.”
…and that the government, nor anyone else, has the right to say “No” to a contribution, and contributions cannot be made in a way you find offensive.
You talk about people being free – “People and companies should be free to speak their minds and contribute to society regardless of their content and their message. That’s what it means to be free.” Except what you’re saying is that nobody has the freedom to reject someone else’s contribution from society, and nobody can offer their contribution under terms they find acceptable. How are you any different from Bill O’Reilly? How are your beliefs going to lead to a truly free society? How is this not a morally relativistic line of thought?
You are basically advocating an anarchic, cesspool society where everyone can keep throwing their feces in, but nobody is allowed to clean things up… which is the inevitable conclusion of moral relativism.
No, I’m not saying you can’t reject someone else’s contribution. I’m only saying you can’t reject it in a way that won’t give other people the same freedom to view and judge the opinion and contribution for itself.
It seems that you’re just arguing that everybody adopt your moral standard as the filter for culture and society. The government censorship and control you’re arguing for is the same that criminalized churches in the Soviet Union, and the same that causes the persecution of Christians and persons of other faiths abroad.
Everybody has a right to their beliefs, ideas, and a right to express their contributions. If you don’t want it and you would like to reject it, then don’t buy it, don’t watch it, and even better, express your dislike of it on the public square. Openly criticize it. That should be protected as well.
I don’t think you’ve thought your position out very well.
flamepanther:
“… deciding and acting on moral standards is the responsibility of the people, not the government.”
Oh, ok. Now I understand. It should be left up to the individual as to what is actually right or wrong… for them. And nobody is able to say, “That’s wrong!”, or take measures to stop individuals acting in an immoral manner because moralities are individually determined, so therefore it’s wrong for the government to say “No” on behalf of society.
This is moral relativism. And it’s a screwy view of democracy.
Goldhammer: No, it’s called “running a government.” The government of the United States is constitutionally prohibited from establishing a state religion. The constitution also protects the freedom of people to choose which faiths they wish to choose. Therefore, the government must maintain a position that enables the people to choose the positions that they wish to choose. Then it is up to the people to keep the moral standards.
People can say “that’s wrong” all they like. Just like I’m saying you’re wrong right now. But just like I’m not being a fascist and deleting your post, I expect the government not to be a fascist and prohibit me from sharing my opinion in the first place.
This is what the first amendment is all about my friend. I wouldn’t want to live in a country without it until the One who has absolute truth returns to take things over. Until He comes back, it is up to us to make our choices of right and wrong, and up to our governments to give us freedom.
That is not moral relativism, that’s freedom. And it’s a perfectly fine view of democracy.
manchicken:
“Everybody has a right to their beliefs, ideas, and a right to express their contributions. If you don’t want it and you would like to reject it, then don’t buy it, don’t watch it, and even better, express your dislike of it on the public square.”
… but I have no freedom to have my government kick it out of the country.
Why are you advocating a censorship of my freedoms? Didn’t you just say, “Come on, let’s be free countries again”? Why are you trying to force me to live in a cesspool society?
“The constitution also protects the freedom of people to choose which faiths they wish to choose. Therefore, the government must maintain a position that enables the people to choose the positions that they wish to choose. Then it is up to the people to keep the moral standards.”
No, the government only has to maintain a position which enables the people to freely choose whatever religion they want to choose.
If you believe morality is objective, then how does freedom of religion translate to freedom of morality?
Are you seriously going to continue to sit here and say that the government should be able to dictate what media I can watch, what media I can produce, and what I do in my own home?
I believe morality is objective, and I hold freedom as one of the highest moral imperatives. If our people are not free to choose what they do and do not want, and if they’re not free to choose what they do and do not wish to do, then we are an amoral dictatorship that should be wiped off of God’s green Earth. God gave us free will. The government should respect our right to choose to do and see what we want to do.
That way, one is free to make the right decisions, and it is a moral good. If you force people to do a moral good, it is not a moral good. It is only the status quo.
I doubt I’ll be able to persuade you that you are wrong here, and that’s fine. I respect your right to express your opinion as you see fit. I just really wish that you and others like yourself would allow others the same freedoms that you enjoy.
“The government should respect our right to choose to do and see what we want to do.”
In what way is allowing complete self-autonomy a moral imperative, or even beneficial to the common good? Not even the Bible goes that far…
In what way is it the government’s responsibility to babysit its citizens or enforce a moral standard? I thought that the Bible contained God’s law. Do you doubt God’s ability to enforce His own law? Why should the US or UK government enforce this law when God is perfectly capable of enforcing it Himself.
When you insist on government-enforcement of God’s law, you are implicitly questioning His ability to do so Himself. You may want to rethink that argument as well.
“In what way is it the government’s responsibility to babysit its citizens or enforce a moral standard?”
Maybe when its citizens start behaving like ferile babies?
“I thought that the Bible contained God’s law.”
No, the Bible says God’s laws are written on the hearts of Man. And, as you said earlier, God has given us the free will to heed those laws or… not. If people were heeding those laws, or if God was enforcing them Himself, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
But the truth of the matter is that society is on the decline because people want to be completely self-autonomous, and God is respecting their free-will decision to live in moral decadence.
“When you insist on government-enforcement of God’s law, you are implicitly questioning His ability to do so Himself.”
Nonsense. The authorities of the land have been instituted by God Himself. We are to obey them. Government-enforced morality is becoming necessary because people are losing their moral compass.
Do you really want to live in a society of savages? That is the inevitable conclusion of your position…
I don’t think that we’re moving towards a society of savages. I have more respect for my fellow man than that, and I think that people deserve the right to express themselves how they see fit. Your fascist ideal of government-enforced morality is pathetic.
The only reason why you are for this control is because you happen to agree with it at this moment. If the government had declared that religious speech was immoral and that it was prohibited then you’d be right here next to me calling for freedom of expression.
Ignorance such as yours is dangerous because freedom goes both ways. If I have the freedom to act in a way that I find appropriate, others will need to have the same freedom to act in the way that they find appropriate. I have a duty to disagree where I do disagree with their definition of propriety, but in no way shape or form is it acceptable for the government to get into the mix and dictate what moral standards society is to adhere to.
As far as I’m concerned you are a black-eye on the face of Christianity. Christianity is a faith where we are free from our sin, and free from the law. It is a faith where freedom and love for one another is supposed to supercede all. Your desire to restrict freedom shows contempt for your fellow man, and I find it disappointing.
This discussion is obviously going nowhere, so I think it’s time for it to end. Have a good day, and I pray that your lust for control over the lives of others comes to an end soon.
“…in no way shape or form is it acceptable for the government to get into the mix and dictate what moral standards society is to adhere to.”
I would imagine it’s acceptable and necessary if you are to get to church on Sundays without some psycho hacking your head off, or if your kids are to play in the street without being openly molested.
“Christianity is a faith where we are free from our sin, and free from the law. … Your desire to restrict freedom shows contempt for your fellow man …”
No, it’s a reflection of the fact that America is not a Christian nation. There are a lot of people here who are amoral, hell-bent, pagans, and would have Christians fed to the lions if they could. Why are you advocating a eunuch government that would be absolved from such matters?
I think you’re confused between freedom of speech and the freedom to act with impunity. The former does not imply the latter. When an individual or company “expresses” themselves in an official, public way, say, by releasing a piece of software or offering a product for sale, this does not fall under the realm of “free speech”, but is an act which affects society as a whole. As such, it falls within the realm of governmental and judicial control structures.
Otherwise, if that wasn’t and as you believe, shouldn’t be the case, society would fall apart. Your pie-in-the-sky ideals don’t match up with reality.
If someone releasing a piece of software or a video game that you find offensive affects you so greatly then don’t that it’s society that has the problem.
Come now! Of course not.
The problem clearly lies with the individual or company who thinks they are, and should be, able to do whatever they want.
No, the problem lies with uppity jerks who think they have a right to tell others what they have to do and what they have to believe. This discussion has come to a conclusion.
Hey, why are you so upset? I just want to have a rational discussion and understand your position. There’s no need for name calling.
I’m not trying to tell others what they have to do, or what they have to believe. I’m trying to tell others what they ought NOT to do – there’s a difference. I’m also trying to help you see that, in the interests of not living in a cesspool society of savages, the government had better well enforce a certain standard of behavior.
You, however, seem to be frothing at the mouth for the idea of trampling on my freedoms in order to advance your morally relativist doctrines of a completely self-autonomous citizenship, and a freedom to act with impunity. In effect, it’s actually you who thinks he has the right to tell others what they have to do and what they have to believe, isn’t it?