There's more to it than that but LeonardoCornejo has it right on best places to look.

Also, if you don't already know as to who as has done what that's wrong journalism-wise, there was a site recently put up that has a ton of info here.

Calling for a boycott on the grounds that something is offensive IS an attempt at censorship. You are applying pressure to force action. Clearly an attempt at censorship. It's amazing how many people try to call their own moralizing of others all fine and dandy. They make up excuses why their attempts at censorship are okay, by making up rules which don't exist. But you are also correct that a petition not to link or read a particular magazine on moral grounds is the same thing.

"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups."


As to that Steam Refund article, I just think its overblown. But if you've been paying attention to issues in gaming and Steam's monopoly and EU laws, you'll have a good idea why its happening. The EU has buyer protection rules which Steam hasn't been following. There had been talks of sanctions over the issue of refunds. This seems to be Steam's response. Steam has to allow refunds by EU law. The 2 hour rule is their idea to prevent abuse, but be fair enough to the consumer. For all we know, that 2 hour rule may have come directly from negotiations with the EU trade commission.

Yeah, its Nathan Grayson, but I also don't see anything really that wrong with the article...besides a little excess outrage over the 2 hour rule, but nothing that out of line.

I'm sorry, I don't agree with your definition. I've consulted three dictionaries, Webster, Oxford, and cambridge. In censorship for the three consulted dictionaries, there is the absolute association with power. A censor has the outright ability to remove content that you find objectionable. Censorship comes from above. It leaves no choice to the creator of the work. Someone calling for a boycott has no absolute power over the actions of others. It also does not prevent the creator from releasing their work as they would. An entity might engage in self-censorship because of a boycott, but they then are the censors, not the group calling for the boycott.

That is the definition of the ACLU. Heard of them? Experts in the field...
Please state the exact definitions and all of them...from the source, not just your reading of it...

Here are some informative links explaining forms of censorship in detail...
https://www.aclu.org/what-censorship
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speakeasy/censorship-smithsonian
https://www.aclu.org/censorship-box
https://www.aclu.org/blog/fifty-shades-censorship
https://www.aclu.org/blog/ban-censorship-not-books-or-websites

The three dictionaries are available online. Why would I copy and paste? I also do not believe that ACLU definition would stand up in court as it were. They are using censorship in a very loose and general way.

I acknowledged that a boycott may result in censorship, but by definition it is not the person calling for the boycott that is doing the censoring. The power to remove the material that triggered the boycott is entirely in the hands of the creator.

Its pretty simple, you and 10,000 "friends" petition, boycott and otherwise harass and threaten someone to change their content. After you've convinced stores to quit carrying the product and convinced a bunch of people in the press to lambast the author... The author changes his content or else it is banned from stores. Who are the ones "forcing" them to change their content?

"Someone" or "some group" forced the change. Of course it was the boycotters. Like I said, funny how people try to deny their own responsibility.

You are trying to claim its censorship but "no one" is responsible...funny that...

Merriam-Webster:
1
a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring
b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

Oxford:
1 The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security: the regulation imposes censorship on all media [as modifier]: we have strict censorship laws

Cambridge:
the act of censoring books, films, etc.: censorship of the press

So... debatable.

However, the mistake you seem to be making is in assuming that 'power' means 'the Government', or 'the Police'. Case in point: Mary Whitehouse.

I think the problem is with you. Do you hate people who are different? Because you are trying so hard to paint something that is clearly a deviation from the norm is being part of the norm. Why? Because you believe there are negative connotations associated with it. Is that why you want to shift the goalposts?

Everyone deviates from the norm in some way more or less. If I'm from a certain country and I live in that country I am a normal citizen. When I move to another country I am no longer normal citizen, I am a foreigner, one of the apparently deviant, diseased and broken people. You know what attitudes like yours breed? Hatred. But you don't want to hate those people, so you come up with all sorts of mental gymnastics so that those people are still fine, but you can look down on the others.

See this floating around this morning on Twitter. Nice to have more proof to back it up. But those that want to make things up just to have some reason to hate are going to ignore it and keep making things up just because it keeps them going.

"the datasets show the most posted Tweets with the #GamerGate hashtag are virtually completely about ethics"


...this thread has some aggressive peeps. :/ Sad to see conversations can't stay civil.

But mah harassment misogyny rape threat death threat violence cisgenders need to die! I say its harassment. Anyone who harasses me and says otherwise is an entitled patriarchal doo-dah!

Another thing about censorship that gets lost is that in many cases, it is accepted. Public television edits out content of movies all the time. Pornography is obviously limited. There is a lot of art considered unsuitable for children and this is generally accepted as a good thing.

But then you have censorship through "outrage". One of the links I posted above spoke of the Smithsonian and a LGBT art display which had a movie censored because it depicted a cross and Christian groups got "offended" by it. I mean seriously, how many of these Christians were going to this LGBT art exposition to even be "offended" by it?

But that's the whole problem with this video game censorship lately. GTA V needs to be removed from Targets and K-Marts in Australia because feminists might be "triggered" by it, as if now adults need to be protected for their sensibilities and as if these feminists were actually really going to buy GTA V anyway. Or Pillars of Eternity needed to have that limerick removed because trans people might be "offended". Heck, it was the straight Casanova which was dumb enough to kill himself over it. Wasn't that saying more about him? Yet no, somehow we now need to protect the "sensibilities" of other adults. But I don't see many social activists caring about Christian sensibilities, nor Christians caring about LGBT sensibilities. Nope, they only care about their "own" sensibilities...

Tell me the real difference between Christians being "offended" by how that crucifix was treated vs. LGBTs being offended by comments in Christian media about what God thinks? Is the difference, your side is right whichever side you are on? When one interest group gets to censor the content of others for being "offended" where does it stop? Should Russians be able to censor every video game that has American soldiers implying they are the bad guys? Or visa versa? How many games would be left that don't offend anyone anywhere? And certainly don't tell me any of them would have any kind of narrative, because the more text, the more chance for offense...

Even all this said, it doesn't mean certain games might not cross the line. I don't hear many serious complaints about the censorship of Rapelay. I didn't hear a whole lot of outrage from anyone when the "Kill the Faggots" game was removed from Steam. Some games really cross the line.

But generally speaking, unless the concept is nearly universally deplorable, I support artistic choice. You might not like the concepts of prostitutes or strippers depicted in video games. Eye candy for males might be a turnoff such as "boob armour". Or you don't like that one can kill civilians in Hatred. Or you don't like torture scenes or the sight of a lot of blood. But are any of these things "so offensive" that "no one" should be allowed to buy that game or else the game "has to" be changed? Because be careful what you wish for, else something you like will be edited for "offending" someone else.

Free will is a funny thing. I vaguely remember one scene from Stephen King's "Misery": the landlady is refusing the writer badly needed painkillers until he burn manuscript of his last novel "by his own free will".

Because RWarehall already went into the "Preemptive strike" phase, let me add another point.
There is some big precedents of public complaints leading to self-imposing whole-industry-wide censorship code: The "Hays Code" for USA movies. Also less universal and more ridiculous "Comics Code" for ...guess what.
There are links to the "buttload more informal wiki" - still informative, more entertaining :) then Wikipedia:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/TheHaysCode?from=Main.HaysCode
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/TheComicsCode
So the concerns about boycotts leading to censorship are backed by experience.

And yes, you are technically correct, boycott campaign by itself isn't a censorship; yet as a part of orchestrated "public outrage" campaign it serves the same purpose, only the results can be actually WORSE. While the censorship defined by laws is still confined by laws, can be countered by legal means and at the end abolished simply by legislature act, censorship in the wider sense ... well, blacklisting for example worked (and probably still works) like the charm. :(

But GTA V IS "art considered unsuitable for children", hence the '18' badge on the front of the box and, as I've previously shown, Target were marketing it children...

Is someone's kiddy on the forums downrepping again?