Rapelay virtual rape game banned by Amazon

[Hoser]

Exactly. It's your freedom to make an offensive product, and it's other's freedom to be offended and it's the freedom of the market to decide to sell or not sell.

Seems like everyone was free and easy here.

 

[Pingfah]

(6) An “extreme image” is an image which—

(a) falls within subsection (7), and

(b) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—

(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,

(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,

(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or

(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),

and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

Yeah, it seems to be largely adressed against snuff films. But section 6b worries me. That is really vague.

Depends if by "and" they mean it must show both. If you must show a (i.e. section 7) AND b then it's kind of moot.

 

[Hermiod]

^It sounds like the measures BDSM porn companies take to keep their credit card processing companies happy (video interviews conducted before and after a shoot where the model(s) go over what their limits are at the start and what they did and didn't enjoy at the end) will do more than enough to satisfy anyone that what they saw wasn't entirely real.

 

[Count Zero]

(6) An “extreme image” is an image which—

(a) falls within subsection (7), and

(b) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—

(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,

(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,

(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or

(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),

and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

Yeah, it seems to be largely adressed against snuff films. But section 6b worries me. That is really vague.

Depends if by "and" they mean it must show both. If you must show a (i.e. section 7) AND b then it's kind of moot.

Yeah, right, I overlooked the and. I'd be a lousy lawyer...

 

[pookha]

Or perhaps certain things shouldn't even be in ones fantasies, and when they are other people worry.

It's not uncommon for women have fantasies of being raped. It's a "freedom from responsibility" thing, a means of reconciling one's sexual urges with cultural norms regarding women's sexual propriety, the whole "slut" vs. "stud" thing. Just as women who have these fantasies certainly don't wish to be raped in real life, most men with rape fantasies have no desire to commit rape in real life either.

Indeed. In fact, the inability to have sexual fantasies is common amongst actual rapists.

there is a freaking huge gap between a sexual fantasy and a rape fantasy.
i suspect all it would take for most women to kill rape fantasies is to meet an actual rape victim.

and yes i would be pretty damn cautious around any man i knew who enjoyed induldging in a game like this.

like i said i think playing a game like this would lead to more identification then people playing some type of shoot em up game.

 

[The Borg Queen]

You know, this thread does bring around an interesting question: Why is raping so much more terrible to "role play" than violence?

I think with violence you can at least say 'oh they are the bad guys and I'm the protector'. You can't have the same argument with rape. IMO.

Except in games where you play the "bad guy".

 

[Captain X]

It's not a red herring, Data Holmes suggested that Hoser was in favour of "thought crime legislation". I was just pointing out that he is completely overreacting to his statement, which is a long long way off that.

It's a red herring in that the suggestion is that if people shouldn't worry about the sexual fantasies of others that then no one should worry about anything.

True, that's entirely different to banning what people think about though.

Not really. It's true no one can read minds to throw people in jail for fantasizing about something taboo, but it makes having anything tangent relating to it, be it stories, artwork, photos, etc. illegal, thereby effectively making the fantasy itself illegal.

It's the jail time aspect of it I find hard to believe.
We have our share of backdoor censorship, too, and I imagine violent porn could be a victim of it. However, you can still get those things (just not easily) and you wouldn't get any problems for possessing them.

It depends on if you get caught with it or not. The way this would really be used would be if the police are investigating someone for something else and found their porn stash.

Or perhaps certain things shouldn't even be in ones fantasies, and when they are other people worry.

Me? no.
But if I found the next door neighbour had pictures of my wife all over his wall and spent his time recording her voice from afar, then yeah, I'd be worried. I'd move too. Yet that's not something they can arrest him for (nor should they be able to)

That isn't what you said though, you said: "Or perhaps certain things shouldn't even be in ones fantasies, and when they are other people worry." Words mean things. You condemned people for having a fantasy, and then suggested that "other people" should worry when people do have that fantasy.

Simultaneously, of all the fantasies one can spend time on, I don't think one where you rape a woman and her daughter, then torture them until they abort any of your possible children is a good one.

It's not my thing either - personally I like running around killing people with any number of firearms and explosives, but that's my thing. I also like looking at porn, but I usually don't mix the two. Thing is, as long as it's just a fantasy and no one is actually harmed, it's none of my business.

Did I say government storm troopers had to get involved? No. But for all the libertarian hooplah in this thread, it wasn't taken down by Secret Service cronies or trained Navy dolphins, the free market decided to take it down.

That isn't the point. The point was against censorship, and not just limited to Amazon, but also the pervading attitude in this thread.

Actually i've just looked into this, full text of the law is available here:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5-pb1

Whilst I agree it is largely ridiculous, it does say that it is a defence to prove that the person in possession of the image participated in it or can show that no non-consensual harm was inflicted upon anyone.

Which seems to me to exclude certainly homemade porn and possibly anything faked. Maybe i'm reading it wrong but it seems that way to me.

The fine print though is that even if something is "perceived" as being real, then it's enough to get people in trouble for even having any of it. It was designed that way thanks to that crusader in the UK and other like-minded people. I sympathize with the victim and her mother, but that doesn't give her or anyone else to nose into their private fantasies this way. I don't know anyone personally, but it seems to me there was someone prosecuted for a story, and another case where a judge declared cartoons to be people in order to invent victims so the case could be prosecuted. I could be mistaken, as my memory is rather foggy, so it could be from someplace other than the UK.

But what I am saying is that I just wish people had some decentcy and commonsence!

Those things vary from person to person. So now I ask you, judgmental much?

And yes I know these types of games have been sold here since the beginning, but in the BACKMARKET! what I am talking about is RETAIL! like Wal-mart or Gamestop.

Proponents of banning pornography in general say very much the same thing.

Exactly. It's your freedom to make an offensive product, and it's other's freedom to be offended and it's the freedom of the market to decide to sell or not sell.

Seems like everyone was free and easy here.

You have the freedom to be offended, yes, but a lot of people seem to have that confused with having the freedom to not be offended at all, and that's where the problem comes in.

 

[Captain X]

there is a freaking huge gap between a sexual fantasy and a rape fantasy.
i suspect all it would take for most women to kill rape fantasies is to meet an actual rape victim.

That's why it's called fantasy - reality has very little or nothing to do with it.

and yes i would be pretty damn cautious around any man i knew who enjoyed induldging in a game like this.

It wouldn't surprise me if you knew someone, male or female, who had such fantasies and even might engage in role play of some kind, and you and no one else doesn't know it. That's partially because it wouldn't be any of your business anyway, but also because there are a lot of people like you who have an emotional knee-jerk reaction to even the thought of anyone having such a fantasy, and associate them with those who can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

like i said i think playing a game like this would lead to more identification then people playing some type of shoot em up game.

Jack Thompson and Hillary Clinton would both say they thought otherwise. Why would they be wrong and you be right? Or could you both be wrong?

 

[JuanBolio]

You watch, the way America is going, these type's of games will be sold here sooner then you think!

What are you talking about? They've been sold here since they've come into existence. And that's a good thing. Its a yardstick for freedom. Do you hate freedom ?

Not by a LONGSHOT!, But what I am saying is that I just wish people had some decentcy and commonsence! And yes I know these types of games have been sold here since the beginning, but in the BACKMARKET! what I am talking about is RETAIL! like Wal-mart or Gamestop.

A black market implies illegality. They have never been illegal here, as far as I know.

 

[Hoser]

/\/\
He said a backmarket. As in, not a secret market, but the places that sell these kinds of things normally.

That isn't what you said though, you said: "Or perhaps certain things shouldn't even be in ones fantasies, and when they are other people worry." Words mean things. You condemned people for having a fantasy, and then suggested that "other people" should worry when people do have that fantasy.

Yes, I condemn people for fantasizing about rape. I'm not going to stop doing that either. I condemn the act, and I condemn those who would think about it as a hobby, and I condemn seventy times those who actually commit the act. There's nothing wholesome or right about it.
And yes, it's none of my business, so in reality I don't know how many people do. Nor do I want to know.

Thing is, as long as it's just a fantasy and no one is actually harmed, it's none of my business.

Thing is, that's the viewpoint I want government to have. But as a private person, if I find out I'm living next to people who are fantasizing about doing stuff like that, I'm movie my wife and children as quick as possible.

That isn't the point. The point was against censorship, and not just limited to Amazon, but also the pervading attitude in this thread.

When a business pulls a product from it's shelves because it knows that product will be offensive to a majority of it's customers, that's not censorship, it's freedom.
Like I said above, in this country people are free to think and do what they want, within limitations of the law. And other people are free to feel offended and condemn, and businesses are free to stop selling something that will inevitably shrink their consumer base.

You have the freedom to be offended, yes, but a lot of people seem to have that confused with having the freedom to not be offended at all, and that's where the problem comes in.

No, you and others are exercising your right to not be offended, and those that aren't can buy these things in the backmarket that caters to tastes like this.

 

[Pingfah]

True, that's entirely different to banning what people think about though.

Not really. It's true no one can read minds to throw people in jail for fantasizing about something taboo, but it makes having anything tangent relating to it, be it stories, artwork, photos, etc. illegal, thereby effectively making the fantasy itself illegal.

But that simply isn't what he suggested at all, in fact he has even said that he doesn't support that, so I really don't know why you are making such a big deal out of such a small statement, he is entitled to find it concerning whether you like it or not

The fine print though is that even if something is "perceived" as being real, then it's enough to get people in trouble for even having any of it. It was designed that way thanks to that crusader in the UK and other like-minded people. I sympathize with the victim and her mother, but that doesn't give her or anyone else to nose into their private fantasies this way. I don't know anyone personally, but it seems to me there was someone prosecuted for a story, and another case where a judge declared cartoons to be people in order to invent victims so the case could be prosecuted. I could be mistaken, as my memory is rather foggy, so it could be from someplace other than the UK.

That was Australia.

Anyway, the big print says that an extreme image is only one that depicts, in a medium that falls under the official definition of pornography, ie. produced with the sole intent of causing sexual arousal:

(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,

(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,

(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or

(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive)

So again, whilst I think the entire thing is rather unneccesary, I say you are also rather overstating the matter in saying that this outlaws "all violent porn." which is the statement you made.

 

[JuanBolio]

What about games like GTA or Crackdown?

I'm a fairly non-violent person, yet I play GTA and have a lot of fun blowing up helicopters with a missile launcher. Does that mean eventually I'm going to pick up a missile launcher and blow up the real thing?

While I find games like Rapelay abhorrent, that doesn't mean a person who plays it is going to go out and rape someone. 'Bolio makes a good point. How is this unacceptable, yet games like GTA sell faster than stores can supply them are considered normal?

J.

Exactly. I've committed acts of violence in video games that would make the bloodiest tyrants in history piss themselves. Does that mean I'm more likely to do it for real? Of course not. Less so, in fact, since I have a harmless outlet for my pent-up aggression.

If mass murder, theft, terrorism, prostitution, drug smuggling, and a dozen other felonies are fair play in the video gaming world, there's no reason on Earth why rape and/or underage sex shouldn't be as well.

Seriously, do you guys even read my posts?

Look at what I quoted, then look at what I wrote.

Now contextualize what I wrote with what I quoted.

Your responses have nothing to do with what I said, and I did not say what you think I did.

Funny, I thought I was responding to J. Allen...

/\/\
He said a backmarket. As in, not a secret market, but the places that sell these kinds of things normally.

Oh. My mistake. Well, as I said, Amazon are well within their rights to allow such material to be sold on their site. I just find it disappointing that they, like so many major retailers, fold like a deck of cards when someone makes a stink. Have we gotten so sensitive as a culture that we'll do anything to avoid being seen as offensive to "family values", minorities/women/whatever?

 

[Danoz]

This game is disgusting, and the people involved with it should be made public so everyone know which sick fucks are making games where you rape someone as the goal. What's their next game? Raping children?

As opposed to murder simulators? Why are they better?

Weird argument. You're essentially asking why one bag of garbage smells worse than another. It just does.

 

[Amaris]

Seriously, do you guys even read my posts?

Look at what I quoted, then look at what I wrote.

Now contextualize what I wrote with what I quoted.

Your responses have nothing to do with what I said, and I did not say what you think I did.

No, I see what you said. The problem is that if someone wants to do this in real life, they've got problems anyway, and a game isn't going to make or break it.


J.

 

[Hoser]

Have we gotten so sensitive as a culture that we'll do anything to avoid being seen as offensive to "family values", minorities/women/whatever?

I'm really not so sure that Amazon, or any other retailer, is being sensitive to any moral values. In the end, they know that there are more people that buy things from their site that are offended by this game, and as such it's not good business sense to alienate them.
Kind of like how Walmart (spits) won't sell things that offend their base.

 

[Amaris]

Have we gotten so sensitive as a culture that we'll do anything to avoid being seen as offensive to "family values", minorities/women/whatever?

I'm really not so sure that Amazon, or any other retailer, is being sensitive to any moral values. In the end, they know that there are more people that buy things from their site that are offended by this game, and as such it's not good business sense to alienate them.
Kind of like how Walmart (spits) won't sell things that offend their base.

They also edit some CDs and DVDs to fit their own standards.
Which is a little beyond crazy, in my opinion.

J.

 

[Hoser]

Yeah, I think it's crazy too. But I never shop there willingly, and most of my music purchases are from Amazon or the second hand shop (Jellybeans) down the street.

 

[Amaris]

Yeah, I think it's crazy too. But I never shop there willingly, and most of my music purchases are from Amazon or the second hand shop (Jellybeans) down the street.

Yeah, I have to shop at Walmart because of my medications, and I might pick up some band aids or something for dinner, but I don't buy my electronics or music there any more. Some clothes, but they're cheap and always fall apart after six months of light use.


J.

 

[Gertch]

Have we gotten so sensitive as a culture that we'll do anything to avoid being seen as offensive to "family values", minorities/women/whatever?

I'm really not so sure that Amazon, or any other retailer, is being sensitive to any moral values. In the end, they know that there are more people that buy things from their site that are offended by this game, and as such it's not good business sense to alienate them.
Kind of like how Walmart (spits) won't sell things that offend their base.

They also edit some CDs and DVDs to fit their own standards.
Which is a little beyond crazy, in my opinion.

J.

Well no. They're sticking to their business model. I remember buying Duke Nukem 3D there and finding out they had the half naked female figures removed. But they also supplied you with a site you could download a patch to put them back in.

So yes, they took them out and then gave us the information to put them back in.

And I shop there willingly. After all, China needs my money to loan back to Obama/Pelosi for their pork package.

 

[JuanBolio]

Weird argument. You're essentially asking why one bag of garbage smells worse than another. It just does.

Weird answer, and completely subjective.