The Mexican Dream

[mirth]

^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?

Interesting question. I don't think a retailer should be forced to carry a product. The game designers don't have to sell it through Steam either. They can market directly to the public or find other vendors. If the government stepped in and said they couldn't sell the game at all, there would definitely be a free speech violation.

[bayonetbrant]

^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?

The US courts have generally held that they are, so far.  There are other nations where that's not necessarily the case.

However, they've also upheld age restrictions for purchase, similar to movie ratings.

[BanzaiCat]

I think it's one thing to have turrets with MGs and Gatling guns to mow down undocumented workers, but using streams of piss and other weird shit is taking it to a whole new level of WTF.

[Jarhead0331]

^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?

Interesting question. I don't think a retailer should be forced to carry a product. The game designers don't have to sell it through Steam either. They can market directly to the public or find other vendors. If the government stepped in and said they couldn't sell the game at all, there would definitely be a free speech violation.

Yes, I also agree that retailers shouldn't be forced to carry products, but haven't the courts already held that businesses may be forced to provide certain goods and services, or face severe penalties? I know of at least one bakery in Colorado that probably has a strong opinion on this.

[mirth]

^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?

Interesting question. I don't think a retailer should be forced to carry a product. The game designers don't have to sell it through Steam either. They can market directly to the public or find other vendors. If the government stepped in and said they couldn't sell the game at all, there would definitely be a free speech violation.

Yes, I also agree that retailers shouldn't be forced to carry products, but haven't the courts already held that businesses may be forced to provide certain goods and services, or face severe penalties? I know of at least one bakery in Colorado that probably has a strong opinion on this.

I dunno, but Steam, Walmart and Amazon all have policies prohibiting 'offensive' products from being sold on their platforms

http://help.walmart.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/841/~/prohibited-products-policy

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200277420

https://partner.steamgames.com/steamdirect

[Jarhead0331]

^I know this. But is anything really "objectively" offensive? Do you think it is ok for Go Daddy to remove websites, from paying customers, that have content that the corporate officers or Board of Directors disagrees with? Is it ok for Google to make it difficult for people to locate certain products, or pages that it finds objectionable?

[mirth]

^I know this. But is anything really "objectively" offensive? Do you think it is ok for Go Daddy to remove websites, from paying customers, that have content that the corporate officers or Board of Directors disagrees with? Is it ok for Google to make it difficult for people to locate certain products, or pages that it finds objectionable?

I'm not trying to argue with you. You asked a question, I gave you my answer. These are why things get litigated and legislated.

[Jarhead0331]

^I know this. But is anything really "objectively" offensive? Do you think it is ok for Go Daddy to remove websites, from paying customers, that have content that the corporate officers or Board of Directors disagrees with? Is it ok for Google to make it difficult for people to locate certain products, or pages that it finds objectionable?

I'm not trying to argue with you. You asked a question, I gave you my answer. These are why things get litigated and legislated.

I'm not arguing with you. Just discussing and trying to see what your opinion is.

[mirth]

^I know this. But is anything really "objectively" offensive? Do you think it is ok for Go Daddy to remove websites, from paying customers, that have content that the corporate officers or Board of Directors disagrees with? Is it ok for Google to make it difficult for people to locate certain products, or pages that it finds objectionable?

I'm not trying to argue with you. You asked a question, I gave you my answer. These are why things get litigated and legislated.

I'm not arguing with you. Just discussing and trying to see what your opinion is.

In this case, I think as long as the designers of the game aren't being told they can't make or sell their game at all, then I don't see a problem. Steam or any other retailer can decide whether or not to carry the product. If they opt not to carry it, the game developer can look for other distribution vendors or they can market sell it directly to the public themselves.

The question about GoDaddy denying someone a website is a somewhat different issue. GoDaddy is both a domain registrar and a web hosting company. I have no problem with GoDaddy saying, "we're not going to host your website". It's another thing for them to deny you a domain name. Domain registration is a quasi governmental function that has been delegated to private resellers such as GoDaddy. You can self host a website if you absolutely have to. You can't self-register a domain name. You have to use some authorized domain registrar.

[OJsDad]

The problem is that the government wants to pick and choose what products/customers you can choose.  Either give the business owners the rights to make these decisions on their own, or start setup a bureaucracy to approve all such decisions make.  If the later, than it's got to be big enough to make decisions within a couple of weeks.

[mirth]

As far as sale of products or services, I'm not sure why the government needs to be involved at all beyond preventing discrimination against customers doing business with them. Every business should have the right to determine what goods it will carry or what services it will provide. Consumers then have the right to decide whether or not they will patronize those businesses.

[glen55]

^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?

Interesting question. I don't think a retailer should be forced to carry a product. The game designers don't have to sell it through Steam either. They can market directly to the public or find other vendors. If the government stepped in and said they couldn't sell the game at all, there would definitely be a free speech violation.

Yes, I also agree that retailers shouldn't be forced to carry products, but haven't the courts already held that businesses may be forced to provide certain goods and services, or face severe penalties? I know of at least one bakery in Colorado that probably has a strong opinion on this.

That bakery wasn't forced to supply a particular product, they were ordered to supply a product they regularly created and sold to a person they had refused to sell their regular product to. While that case is now up on appeal, it seems to me like a standard issue civil rights case, just like the seminal civil rights cases of the '60s where motels on federal highways were ordered to provide rooms to black people. Sexual preference has been a protected class for a few years now, so no, you can't refuse to sell your standard goods to gay people.

It wasn't like they were forced to produce a sexually explicit gay wedding cake, it was just a regular wedding cake that they refused to make for a gay couple. From the CO Civil Rights Commission's appellate brief:

Respondents Charlie Craig and David Mullins are a Colorado same-sex couple. In 2012, they planned to marry in Massachusetts and have a reception afterward in Colorado.

Accompanied by Craig's mother, Craig and Mullins went to Masterpiece to buy a wedding cake for their reception. Id. at 5a, 64a. At the shop, the couple was met by Phillips. When they told Phillips that they were interested in purchasing a wedding cake for their wedding, he replied that it was his standard business practice not to provide cakes for same-sex weddings. He explained that he would sell the couple other baked goods, including "birthday cakes, shower cakes, ... cookies and brownies." But, he said, "I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings." Id. at 4a–5a, 64a–65a.

Craig, Mullins, and Craig's mother immediately left. They never discussed details about the cake that Craig and Mullins were seeking, such as the cake's design or whether it would include any special features or messages. Id. at 4a, 65a.

[Zulu1966]

^I know this. But is anything really "objectively" offensive? Do you think it is ok for Go Daddy to remove websites, from paying customers, that have content that the corporate officers or Board of Directors disagrees with? Is it ok for Google to make it difficult for people to locate certain products, or pages that it finds objectionable?

I'm not trying to argue with you. You asked a question, I gave you my answer. These are why things get litigated and legislated.

I'm not arguing with you. Just discussing and trying to see what your opinion is.

Well - I think some of this is relative ... to raise a point made earlier - if it was a game of the KKK shooting black people would that be any more offensive - would perhaps steam have taken more notice and NOT allowed that one - I suggest it would have been and they would have done. Is it because its "just" mexicans ?  Or is it a form of satire against the racists out there ? Having said that - there is a game on steam which consists of Scottish people fighting english people with beer bottles and porridge - is that less racist. I think given the current situation the fact there are mexicans is less humorous than it could have been a while back .. what if they werent mexicans but canadians - I am guessing that would probably be be more acceptable and generate far less comment - much as the england versus scots generated none.

So - I agree with JH - its racist and cannot see how this got through. Is there a right to absolute free speech - I would suggest if it were the KKK there wouldnt and shouldnt be. Personally to scots vs english game doesnt bother me - as perhaps this game wouldnt if it were canadians. Racism it would seem and whther somethng is acceptable or not is not black and white.

[FarAway Sooner]

^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?

My own sense is, while games like that should most certainly NOT be illegal, I'd rather the commercial sites that I use not feature such content.  They're totally welcome to make their game and try to sell it.

I just don't want a platform I use to carry it.  That's all.

[mirth]

^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?

Interesting question. I don't think a retailer should be forced to carry a product. The game designers don't have to sell it through Steam either. They can market directly to the public or find other vendors. If the government stepped in and said they couldn't sell the game at all, there would definitely be a free speech violation.

Yes, I also agree that retailers shouldn't be forced to carry products, but haven't the courts already held that businesses may be forced to provide certain goods and services, or face severe penalties? I know of at least one bakery in Colorado that probably has a strong opinion on this.

That bakery wasn't forced to supply a particular product, they were ordered to supply a product they regularly created and sold to a person they had refused to sell their regular product to. While that case is now up on appeal, it seems to me like a standard issue civil rights case, just like the seminal civil rights cases of the '60s where motels on federal highways were ordered to provide rooms to black people. Sexual preference has been a protected class for a few years now, so no, you can't refuse to sell your standard goods to gay people.

It wasn't like they were forced to produce a sexually explicit gay wedding cake, it was just a regular wedding cake that they refused to make for a gay couple. From the CO Civil Rights Commission's appellate brief:

Respondents Charlie Craig and David Mullins are a Colorado same-sex couple. In 2012, they planned to marry in Massachusetts and have a reception afterward in Colorado.

Accompanied by Craig's mother, Craig and Mullins went to Masterpiece to buy a wedding cake for their reception. Id. at 5a, 64a. At the shop, the couple was met by Phillips. When they told Phillips that they were interested in purchasing a wedding cake for their wedding, he replied that it was his standard business practice not to provide cakes for same-sex weddings. He explained that he would sell the couple other baked goods, including "birthday cakes, shower cakes, ... cookies and brownies." But, he said, "I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings." Id. at 4a–5a, 64a–65a.

Craig, Mullins, and Craig's mother immediately left. They never discussed details about the cake that Craig and Mullins were seeking, such as the cake's design or whether it would include any special features or messages. Id. at 4a, 65a.

Here's the thing though. In 2012, same sex-marriage wasn't recognized in CO. Why should the baker be required to provide a cake for a wedding reception when the state didn't recognize the wedding as valid at the time?