GP Poll: Was Amazon Right to Drop Rape Game?

As GamePolitics reported this week, online retailer has blocked sales of RapeLay, a Japanese hentai game being offered on Amazon by an affiliated re-seller.

While many were upset by news of the game, some felt that Amazon’s decision amounted to censorship.

What do you think?

Register your opinion in the GP poll at left.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Chaplain99 says:

    I wholeheartedly agree.  But let’s keep the discussion relative to the topic.  I’m tired of personal attacks that have more to do with a person’s beliefs than the subject at hand.


    "HEY! LISTEN!"

  2. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    2.  I have no idea what you are asking then.

    3.  What does incitement to racial hatred or, by extension, incitement to rape have to do with anything?  Rapelay in no way condones, promotes, or encourages real rape.


    Andrew Eisen

  3. 0
    Littlemog says:

    I could also speek for the people who create Hentai that they are not all bad people, yes the rapelay game could have been designed better if the main character was not a rapist, but the reality is that the creators of Hentai games might be trying to talk about the serious issue of rape in society and never did really want to offend people. It is hard to understand this unless if you really wanted to make a game that contained the theme main issues of rape in society.


    To discuss rape in a hentai game is difficult because by its definition hentai is meant for adult entertainment. In that case, the rape is meant to be for the player’s enjoyment. With the possible question of getting only 2 endings, both negative (I believe in both, you die.) In that respect, it could be interpretted as ironic, ultimately punishing the viewer because negative things happen to the protagonist, through whom the gamer experiences the game world.

    Are there tears in the kid’s eyes because inflicting pain is part of the control crime? Or is it to jerk at your moral heartstrings, telling you how wrong it is?

    Rape can be discussed seriously without glorifying it. Apparently, many people found the film Irreversible more disturbing than other film depictions of rape because it was shot from a distance: rather than inadvertantly sexualising the victim with closeups of skin.

  4. 0
    Littlemog says:

    1)No one cares about your stance on rape vs. murder.

    People are comparing the two because if you ban a game in which the object is to rape someone, then surely you must ban a game that has you murder someone. The worry is that things will snowball, and suddenly every game that depicts non-consentual violence (I don’t know how to phrase that better – picking a fight on someone, as opposed to WWE or whathaveyou) is banned.


    The very reason the game has been banned (on amazon) is because it has objectional content that is either offensive or harmful. Which means you must argue the content of the game.

    Either the game has content that is fine to be sold, or it hasn’t. If it hasn’t, then to justify that opinion we must look at the games content and why it was made, and for what purpose. Often that will drag the developers in, because the gut reaction of many people would be "what were they thinking?!"

  5. 0
    Littlemog says:

    2.  Depends on why you’re playing the game.  Some people play for challenge, some to experience new things, some to safely and legally experience something taboo and illegal, some out of sheer curiosity, etc.

    I see your point there, but that’s not quite how I meant the question;

    Usually, when you kill something on say, Manhunt or GTA, your only reward is that which the game provides.

    If you’re watching something that’s intended, as a hentai, for you to jack off to, then you have the added association of sexual pleasure and watching rape. (With the obvious exception to people that might happen to jack off to watching people get murdered, which I suppose is possible)


    It’s not that since it’s hentai, you must jack off to it, but that whoever produces it as part of that genre produces it for the purposes of jacking off to. (Correct me if I’m wrong in respect to the company/producers producing it for that purpose if they’ve stated otherwise somewhere)

    3.  First of all, you can make a movie targeting a particular gender, ethnicity, or whatever.  It’s protected speech and cannot be banned

    Incitement to racial hatred is ‘potentially illegal’, according to the BBFC, the British film regulation’s governing body. That is, however, on films, not on games, even though in the film, the victims would be fictional (the actors aren’t, but they’re acting, hence we assume it is fictional) Usually the BBFC will nag you to cut or edit the film, rather than banning outright.

    There is some argument over live action vs drawn there, of course. Things are a little blurrier when it comes to drawn action – for example, it’s illegal to have non-consentual acts (such as rape) even in an R18 (usually hardcore porn), but I’ve never come across any info about illustrated action.


    If there’s a market for it, it will get made.

    That’s true. It’s just very unfortunate.

  6. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    Well, technically the game wasn’t banned, Amazon just decided not to sell it (Amazon JP is still selling it).

    1.  In my opinion, murder is worse then rape because as horrible as rape is, at least you’re still alive.  Of course, I’ve never been raped or murdered so…

    2.  Depends on why you’re playing the game.  Some people play for challenge, some to experience new things, some to safely and legally experience something taboo and illegal, some out of sheer curiosity, etc.

    3.  First of all, you can make a movie targeting a particular gender, ethnicity, or whatever.  It’s protected speech and cannot be banned (at least not by the gov’t.  Stores may choose not to carry it.)  Second, rape almost by its very definition targets women.  That said, this game targets three women.  Three fictional women.

    "I suppose it’s a bit of a kick in the teeth that… people still want to make and play a game that simulates rape and, in general, puts women down."

    If there’s a market for it, it will get made.

    "It’s closer to home than plain old murder."

    If you know someone who’s been raped but no one who’s been murdered, I suppose it would.  I personally know both.  You know what the worst is for me?  Loved ones who die from medical ailments such as a brain tumor because unlike murder, there’s no one to blame.


    Andrew Eisen

  7. 0
    kurbster says:

    just wonderful….Neowin: the retards of the internet, finally caught on to this

    Just a matter of time until Fox news picks up on it.

    Go ahead…keep putting fuel on the fire….kill my buzz.  I’m actually quite pissed off how GamePolitics is handling this….I was expecting them to defend the choice of the consumer instead of getting butthurt over cultural values

  8. 0
    Chaplain99 says:

    Again, I’ll try to keep this short.

    1)No one cares about your stance on rape vs. murder.

    2)’s actions are on trial here, not the developers of the game.

    That being said, let’s get back to talking about the validity of Amazon’s actions, and away from the witch-hunts.


    "HEY! LISTEN!"

  9. 0
    Littlemog says:

    It seems in order to decide whether the game should or should not have been banned we need to work out the following things:

    1 – Is rape the same as murder (In this case, I think it’s more appropriate to compare the game with Manhunt because murder is the focus, rather than just something you do on the way). Yes, both are illegal, non-concentual, and damaging (obviously). Many of us are brought up that rape is worse (or at least, more immeadiate), hence the knee-jerk reaction.

    2 – Is the reward in these games the same? Do you get the same reward from killing someone in Manhunt or Postal that you get from RapeLay. The added factor of, by being a Hentai game, it might be the intention to jack-off to the game. I’d consider that to be more influencial than merely acting and watching either game. However, it would be theoretically possible to jack off to murder in Manhunt, albeit rarer, which would then have the same effect.


    3 – Targetting. In a film anyone can get shot, but should it be ‘inciting racial hatred’ by, say, specifically shooting arabic people and it’s prevented in a positive light, it’s banned (or the film company gets a severe talking to and they self regulate it to be milder)

    I’m not sure whether there’s a specific target in Manhunt – I haven’t played it.

    In RapeLay, you’re specifically targetting a demographic – women. That might be rather obvious by the game name (I’m sure there aren’t as many games about raping men, or women assaulting women)…Then again that’s not to say that raping everything in sight is better.


    It’s really quite difficult to say. I suppose it’s a bit of a kick in the teeth that, after all the campaigning so raping your wife was illegal, a law passed only a few decades ago in the UK (since you were married to her, she couldn’t possibly not want sex with you, so it couldn’t be called rape.) people still want to make and play a game that simulates rape and, in general, puts women down.

    It’s closer to home than plain old murder.

  10. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    "Amazon isn’t preventing anyone from getting the game, they are just deciding not to sell it on their site. People seem to be under this assumption that Amazon offer a public service and that by dropping a product they are censoring it […]"

    Funny how you keep trotting out that claim, even when the poster above you explicitly acknowledges that Amazon is not in any way required to sell the game. I guess it’s easier to argue against imaginary arguments than it is to argue against what people are actually saying.

  11. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    "A point conveniently ignored was that since the growth of the Internet there has been a growth in paedophillia, clearly child porn has either helped create or given people the ability to reveal a nasty side of themselves."

    Earlier you said it has seemingly grown, but now you claim it as fact. Where is the statistical evidence for your claim that the Internet has led to an increase in child molestation? Where is the evidence that any kind of pornography has "given rise to certain real life sex crimes"?

    You sound like Jack Thompson claiming that violent video games have given rise to certain real life murders, and you provide just as much evidence.

  12. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    First, yes, they are separeate issues, but you are still wrong. They are the same argument, and you can come to the same conclusions, because both are fantasies, violence and sex, regardless of the medium. They are only separate once you bring them into physical being, once you actually commit an act of sex or violence.

    And furthermore, perhaps it is easier nowdays to TRACE pedophilia, with new technologies. But your whole argument is like you are trying to say, the Internet makes pedophiliacs. No, that is not the case. The Internet, it just makes it easier for those who are already pedophiliacs to get their stuff. But on the same hand, it also could arguably make it easier to catch them as well.

    Overall, however, it doesn’t matter. You are using the same argument they are using, and it does not matter what the medium is. I could replace "rape" or "pedophilia" with "assault" or "murder" and it will still be the same argument. You are trying to split the argument by saying these are completely different, and while yes, they are technically different at face value, they both come down to one single truth. They are fictitious fantasies.

    Playing/watching "X" leads into performing "Y" in real life. Those who play violent games and then kill people, and those who watch porn then go out and rape people, they were not turned into it by doing "X" but rather, they were already mentally troubled. If they become addicted to something, that is a personal mental issue, that means they already had that kind of addictive personality, and just happened to be porn, though it could have been any number of things.

    "It’s quite clear that certain types of porn have given rise to certain real life sex crimes." And no, it is not. If it is so clear, provide solid evidence of this. Show consistent, scientific, data of this. Show evidence, that these "certain types of porn" can turn an ordinary, healthy person into some time of sexual criminal, someone who had not already had mental problems, developmental issues, or any other kind of possible, internal, influence.

  13. 0
    State says:

    Personally, I think one should be able to buy it. Even if it is not family friendly. I just don’t like the general idea that person B has the right to decide what person A should be reading/watching, or not, unless it is against the law.

    Amazon isn’t preventing anyone from getting the game, they are just deciding not to sell it on their site. People seem to be under this assumption that Amazon offer a public service and that by dropping a product they are censoring it, they’re not telling you that you can’t play the game, they’re not enforcing a ban on the game with the US.

  14. 0
    State says:

    It is the same argument, but the two (sex and violence) are two different set of emotions, you can’t say that playing a violent video game does not make one violent therefore porn does not make one more likely to carry out the fantasy in real life, they’re separate issues.

    Porn addiction is now becoming a big problem, yet you don’t hear the same of violence/gore addiction. Sexual gratification is completely different from gratification gained from violent games. In many cases people search out more extreme porn in which to gain their kicks from. I think people truly underestimate humanity’s sexual instincts.

    A point conveniently ignored was that since the growth of the Internet there has been a growth in paedophillia, clearly child porn has either helped create or given people the ability to reveal a nasty side of themselves. It’s quite clear that certain types of porn have given rise to certain real life sex crimes. It’s also well known that when people start mixing violence with sex it leads to very dangerous things (I’m sure you’re fully aware of Ed Gein for example).

  15. 0
    Tammej says:

    Again, it’s their site and they have to decide themselfes if they want to sell a product or not.

    Personally, I think one should be able to buy it. Even if it is not family friendly. I just don’t like the general idea that person B has the right to decide what person A should be reading/watching, or not, unless it is against the law.

    We already live in a world where it’s the norm that we have a long list of forbidden books in many cultures. Sure, depending on where you live, among those books might be the bible, erotic fiction, propaganda and ‘how to build an atomic bomb with household goods’. 

    Rape fiction makes highly questionable reading material, but it’s more widespread than you might think, and read by responsible adults, I see no problem there. A game about it would seem to be the ‘same thing, only different’ to me. It’s not going to help on the long run to just keep adding to this list of forbidden words. What’s important is to verify at least the age and (if possible) the sanity of people who consume it, I guess.



  16. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    You are using the same argument, though. Yes, sex and violence is different, but you are presenting the argument that a sexual game makes people, or encourages them, whatever, to perform real life sexual interactions. And, just by playing a rape game, does not mean you are taking part of it either. Even through masturbation, that is not taking part of it. That is enjoying it as it was intended.

    That is the very same argument against us, that by playing violent things, it makes us violent. Let’s say I play a first-person shooter, and decided, "you know, I feel like some target practice" and go out and shoot at targets, under your argument, that is comparable to masturbating after playing RapeLay.

    " I do wonder about the people that enjoy" – and that right there, you are already assuming possible sexual deviancy.

    They are the same at the very core of it all, and why? Because they are all fictitious. We play violent video games for entertainment, and some of us play sexual games for entertainment as well. True, it may be a different kind of entertainment, but entertainment nonetheless.

  17. 0
    TBoneTony says:

    And about the Anime haters siding with Game haters,

    I think it is possible but kinda not realistic unless if Anime was really popular too.

    You can also get some people who really hate Anime or Videogames, yet they don’t want to bann it from others.

    And then you get some Anime haters and Game haters that will try to bann the things they hate just to get some publicity as it has shown for politicians that this could be a good vote getter in a vital election.

    So I am not so sure about the fear of Anime haters siding with Game haters, yes it can happen but so far since that Videogames are way more popular than Anime, and that Anime is still not really known for many people then I think it is only a 30% chance that Anime haters might side with Game haters,

    but that is only just my opinion and of course I could be wrong.


  18. 0
    TBoneTony says:

    As far as the censorship debate goes my one real belief, and this only just my belief and not something that I know is either right or wrong, is that if an event is real, and the event was a crime, like a beheading of a real person or the sexual exploitation of a real child, then I would consider that illegal and needs to be censored to protect children and adults from seeing it

    I guess that was also the reason why they censored the Stingray footage from Steve Irwins last ever documentry because that was the moment when he died, and I am sure many people never wanted to see graphic footage of it

    I also seem to recall that even the photo of Hitler after he killed himself was eddited in some sort of way to avoid people being distressed from seeing a dead person

    Even a photo or film of a woman being raped for real should deffinately be censored and taken off the market because it was a film of a realistic crime in full detail

    Now when something is a fantasy that never uses real children, like a Hentai movie with Lolicon and things like that, it is ok because the characters are drawn and not real at all.

    Yes some people will get offended, sadly we can’t control what other people get offended over because it is a mixture of emotions based on an individuals thoughts and feelings of what they consider to be moral and ok compared something else that it is seen as obsence to them.

    It is a hard line to talk about, but for me on a personal level, if the offending content is a real crime that is exploitated realisticly then it can be distrubing and within some people could be good to censor that detail.

    Otherwise if the offending content is not meant to be real, then it is ok.


    I could also speek for the people who create Hentai that they are not all bad people, yes the rapelay game could have been designed better if the main character was not a rapist, but the reality is that the creators of Hentai games might be trying to talk about the serious issue of rape in society and never did really want to offend people. It is hard to understand this unless if you really wanted to make a game that contained the theme main issues of rape in society.


  19. 0
    State says:

    It’s not really the same argument though, the comparisons between GTA and Rapelay don’t stick, why? Because simulated rape in pornography exists for sexual gratification (I understand Hentai is loaded with it and quite frankly I find it sick and want nothing to do with and I do wonder about the people that enjoy, whether or not I think it should exist is debatable though). If we get back to the original story of Rapelay, I find it sad that this will be used as an example to generalise over the video game industry when it is really an example of interactive pornography, and Amazon does not provide a public service in that it should protect the facade of "anti-censorship".

    Since the introduction of the Internet paedophillia has seemingly grown, whether or not these people always had these tendencies before they saw child porn is debatable, but the fact that the imagery has unlocked or create more trouble stands. Porn is different from violence, it’s for sexual gratification, you actually simulate similar experiences of the act through masturbation. Watching or playing violence you’re not actually taking part in it; experiencing it, but with pornography you are to a much much greater level. We need to understand that sex (or rather porn) and violence are two different entities, before we start claiming that rape pornography is the same as the violence in GTA.

  20. 0
    Wolvenmoon says:

    If they decided to ban all products on the holocaust and started promoting nazi propoganda, that’s their perogative. It’s their site.

    What we have a choice in is whether or not we spend our money there. If they decide to ban a hentai rape game? Yeah, I’ll still shop there. If I searched for a word used int hat game’s title and pulled it up, I’d be gacked out.

  21. 0
    dan888 says:

    But there are a good number of other non-ESRB rated games on Amazon as well, including all of their hentai games that do get official releases here in the US (some links were posted earlier in these comments, those hentai games although they have an 18+ thing on them, the ESRB didn’t give them that, the company did)

  22. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    You understand, however, that is a very same argument, used against us. The idea of "desensitization." Except, for us, it’s is violence, but you are using what is, at the core, the same argument.

    If someone takes out such actions, it’s not a matter of, "oh, they saw this, and decided to do it" no. Anything could’ve set them off. They are already in psychological trouble. And even then, if they are depraved enough, they will find ways to obtain what they want, illegally. Just because something becomes censored, doesn’t mean it all goes away.

    Take real child porn for example. It’s illegal, but they still find a way to obtain it, and you still hear about the occasional sting operation against a group of child pornography producers/distributors.

    Oh, and just in case it wasn’t sarcasm (I’m actually being nice about this one): "Sorry, I was under the impression that we were still talking about CG/art when people started talking about child porn and being against child porn." The whole point being, there IS CG/art child porn. And it’s legal because it is CG/art.

  23. 0
    BearDogg-X says:

    Good point there. Voted unsure.

    Getting raped by the Witch or the Tank would count more than the hordes.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.

    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(0-3), LSU(3-0)

  24. 0
    Shahab says:

    I* have just one thing to say, and I don’t think anyone will even read it, but this is it:

    All you people who wanted this "horrible rape simulator" gone have just adopted the philosophy of our beloved Jack Thompson. You have now become little JT’s, running around yelling about the horrible game that makes rape ok. His litmus test involves violence, yours involves involuntary sex acts. Both things are illegal in real life.

    That being said, Amazon can do what they want, and they decided the controversy and possible hit to their reputation wasn’t worth the small amount of money they were making from some asian rape game.

    I am sure some of you people will say,"rape is different than murder". Well, yes, they are. The philosophy of banning games which you think are offensive is the same no matter what you are objecting to.

    *The above mentioned "I" plays no rape games. Unless getting raped by the zombie hordes in Left 4 Dead counts.

  25. 0
    PushDustIn says:

    I hate to be a troll but here it goes:

    I’m a long time reader of, but the poll itself actually upsets me. I’ll explain why.

    First off, when GP posted about Rapeplay it said the following:

    "GP: While we find this game appalling, it is not a product of the U.S. or British video game industry. It is an import which is apparently only available through a single re-seller who specializes in the hentai market. We expect that Amazon will take the appropriate steps to correct the situation. "

    On the next day, Feb 12, 2009 GP had this reaction to Amazon’s decision:

    "At the time we predicted that – since RapeLay was offered as a used product by re-seller Hentaiguy – Amazon likely didn’t know about the game and would do the right thing when they found out."

    With these comments, it would be assumed that GP itself was supporting Amazon’s right to drop this game. In the Feb 12th article they even used the words "show him the door".

    It seems that GP is like that kid who plays with fire and then gets upset when their shirt gets burned. I’m not upset with the description of the poll, but instead because this post has the tag "bad press". With this tag, it seems that GP is against Amazon’s decision to drop the Hentai game. I find this very hypocritical.

    I realize that this may not be the case at all, perhaps the three articles were written by different people and that accounts for the different perspectives. That is my main beef.


    Here is what I actually believe:


    • Offensive material. reserves the right to determine the appropriateness of listings posted to our site. Examples of offensive items are soiled undergarments, crime-scene photos, and human organs and body parts. Be aware of cultural differences and sensitivities and be careful to post items that are appropriate for our global community.
    • Pornography. Pornography, X-rated movies, home porn, hard-core material including magazines that depict graphic sexual acts, amateur porn are prohibited. Unrated erotic videos and DVDs, properly censored erotic artwork and magazines of the type you’d find at a typical bookstore are permitted; product images that contain nudity, graphic titles, and descriptions must be sufficiently concealed with censor strips.


    Amazon clearly states its policies on what can be sold. (Though admittedly, it took some searching) Amazon had the right to drop the game from their sellers list as it violated the Terms of Service. It’s there site; if HentaiGuy wants to sell his used Hentaigames he can do it from his own website. Amazon was trying to calm the fire, and it is in my belief that they did the right thing.

    On as some of the comments have pointed out, Rapeplay is still available. For’s guidelines I only found the following section (の権利留保)to mention things that cannot be sold (If someone finds something else, please point it out). It was very broad and said things that are illegal and whatever the site may like cannot be sold. It’s much more liberal (They can even sell alcohol!) but that’s due to the cultural difference between the United States (Which is basically built upon Judeo-Christian ideas) and Japan.

  26. 0
    Littlemog says:

    Sorry, I was under the impression that we were still talking about CG/art when people started talking about child porn and being against child porn.


    However, would catering for someone who has a sexual attraction to children, or a sexual fetish to rape someone, not encourage such behaviour? Particularly if it is interactive and rewarding?

    It is possible that it would be cathartic – ie that it would prevent that person from doing it in the real world because they can do it through the game. But then, would it not desensitize them?


    Obviously your average person won’t turn into a kiddy fiddler from playing such a game. It’s someone that’s already leaning towards it that then gets that behaviour reinforced by desensitization that I’d be worried about.


    Would the censorship then become an issue of potentially protecting children (and women) or is that too far a step to make?

  27. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Well, I’m assuming that this game is a porn game (sure seems like it). And porn games are for…well, arousal. I can honestly say that I have a rape fantasy that I would like to try (with a willing woman, obviously), and a game about it would suit me quite well. I would never, EVER do it in real life, and would support changing the law to allow rapists to get the death penalty/life in prison.

    Just because I "get off" on certain concepts doesn’t mean I’d try it in real life (except as a roleplay, that’d be fun). I’ve thought about (quite vividly) shooting certain people, stealing certain stuff, all sorts of immoral/fun things, but I’d never do any of it, because there are consequences to every action.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  28. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    It’s so incredibly gray….

    My thing is, the company can do whatever the hell they want. Is it right to pull the game? Well, it can avoid plenty of bad rep, and it IS a bad game. Is it wrong to pull the game? Well, it’s hypocritical to have some products but take off others, and unfair to the seller (I’d just use eBay).

    I support a COMPANY’s right to sell whatever they want on their site, but I don’t think it was necessarily "right" to pull it.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  29. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    There needs to be an option for "It’s their choice, even if it is hypocritical/unfair/stupid."

    Do I agree with the pull? No. Do I agree that they have the right to do so? Yes.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  30. 0
    dan888 says:

    But this game would be legal to sell in both Japan and the US by content, therefore that example is irrelevant.  The fact that it wasn’t the company’s intention to be sell in America doesn’t make it illegal to buy or sell it in America as long as the copies of the game are legal copies themselves because of the first sale doctrine.

    If an American  company were to uncensor it (Japanese hentai games are censored by law), then the uncensored version would be illegal in Japan, because the content itself is illegal, and this example would be relevant, but not in the case where it is legal in both locations.

  31. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    Actually, if there is a license to do so, then yes. I believe, if a product does not violate any laws, then it’s legal.

    Let’s say I wanted a flamethrower. Guess what, flamethrowers, believe it or not, ARE legal (as, there is no actual law regarding them). So I could legally import, and legally own, a flamethrower. But if I wanted, say, cocaine, then no. Because cocaine is an illegal substance, hence it is illegal to both import and own.

    The producers of RapeLay, I think it is not that they intended it to never ever leave Japan. That would be completely stupid to think so. Rather, they targetted it to a Japanese audience, and the Japanese would be their main demographic upon which they would focus.

  32. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    Except, you are stretching the argument. You are using a very extreme example. So I will break it down.

    1. Said example would not be industry made, but rather, by an individual or group. Such a video would not usually be made, as some form of protest in favor of rights or freedom of speech, but rather, a message to others. A tactic of intimidation. So I highly doubt they would care if it was censored or not, as censorship is not the issue with this video; it’s why did they behead the person, what is their cause? This is different to, say, pornpgraphy, as porngraphy has only one reason; pleasure. Entertainment.

    2. You assume I believe censorship is black and white. No, I do not believe that. If anything, you are the one using a black and white fallacy, in that: A). You either support censorship, and hence morally right, or B). you do not support censorship, and are not only morally wrong, but also a hypocrite.

    Just because I disapprove of any censorship, does not mean I see it as black and white. There is also responsibilities that come into play. For example, if someone frequently calls blacks, niggers, they must be held responsible for it. I would never believe that Freedom of Speech is some kind of way to say whatever you want, and never get in trouble.

    The reason I say an exclusion to "self-censorship" is because I cannot judge a person on that. Well, I could, but I refuse to do so. While I can express opinion saying I wish they had not, I will not say, "You are wrong for doing so!"

    3. Honestly? I would not want it censored. The world is a violent, violent place. While I would understand why there would be censorship, as I’m sure not many people on our side of the world would be able to handle something like that without freaking out, I believe that is something that people just have to get used to. In order to fight violence, you must get used to the violence. Like a surgeon, how can you perform surgery if you get squimish at the sight of blood?

    While I would disapprove of censoring it, I would certainly understand their reasons. And perhaps you should understand, there are other logics outside of yours, that can be argued to be right, as what is "right" is subjective.

  33. 0
    kurbster says:

    Let’s say that owning gernades is legal in Russia, but not in the USA.  I import the gernades from Russia.  Does that allow me to sell them in the USA legally?

  34. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    "However, that then would leave it completely legal to have drawn or CG child porn."

    Yes. I think that’s the point.

    "If you can’t have art or CG child porn because of consent, why can you have rape art or CG?"

    Who says you can’t have art or CG child porn because of consent? Fictional characters don’t really feel anything when their rights are violated.

  35. 0
    dan888 says:

    Doesn’t the first sale doctrine allow it to be resold in the US if an American is selling it, regardless of it it was intended to be sold here?


    Importing is legal, unless I am wrong I thought that reselling imports was also legal.

  36. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    "The very definition of rape is that the victim isn’t consenting. If they consent (without coersion), it’s not rape: it’s sex."

    Except that he’s talking about what’s going on behind the scenes, not what seems to be happening in front of the cameras. That’s what make-believe is all about: doing one thing while pretending that it’s another. As long as no real children are involved in its production, I see nothing ethically wrong with it.

  37. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    "So what would your opinion be of a game that depicted paedophillia, as no really child would be harmed, would you consider that okay or would you want that censored?"

    I would consider it okay for it to not be censored, and not okay for it to be censored. The fact that "no real child would be harmed" leads me to say this without reservation.

  38. 0
    State says:

    So what is your opinion on beheading videos (filmed illegal actions) then? To censor or not to censor?

    From my understanding you don’t mind some censoring (as long as it’s not called that), by making the content in it illegal, at the end of the day it’s still censoring. Perhaps if you didn’t perceive to hold such morals you wouldn’t mind admitting that some censorship is good (it’s not a black and white issue), and this is what annoys me with people stating "all censorship is bad… but except when dealing with…". It’s not twisting an argument it’s just showing you all the parts to it, and for you it’s unpalatable and have to say the argument has been twisted or whatever, it’s hard for you to acknowledge that there are positives to censorship and you simply sound hypocritical.

  39. 0
    kurbster says:

    Once again….this has nothing to do with morality.  There are tons of hentai games out there that provide consensual and romantic porn….why aren’t those listed then? 1) H-games are in low demand….no publisher would risk losing a profit on a extremely small minority.  2) Due to the lack of interest, the ESRB rates none of these games, except for a handful of games put out by brave American publishers.  3) Amazon odviously has a policy on only selling games that are rated by the ESRB (could also be a federal law)

    Amazon did not remove Rapelay.  It’s still avaliable on  If you bothered to google translate the page, it clearly says that shipping is restricted everywhere except in Japan.  So odviously, the 2 copies that were avaliable bypassed customs to get into the states.

    It was never meant to be sold outside of Japan, plain and simple.  Cry and bitch all you want about how they let other objectional material to be sold….everything on Amazon has been rated and authorized to be sold in the USA

    Rapelay was NOT authorized to be sold on or in the USA

    now quit your bitching before Jacko takes note

  40. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    @Littlemog: Ah, THAT, is where you are wrong. In the US, you can have art or CG hentai. It’s called lolicon or shotacon (depending on the sex of who is the child), it’s a legit genre of hentai, and there is argument over its protection, as technically, it does have artistic value hence not obscene under the Miller Test, therefore, protected by First Amendment laws.

    And no. I do not think, it should be banned, if it depicts rape. It aught NOT be banned because it still has value. Furthermore, you cannot present to me that pornography "encourages" rape, unless it comes out and says GO RAPE PEOPLE! It is a sexual fantasy, and nothing more.

    @State: I would enjoy it if you do not twist my argument around, as that is exactly what you are doing. You are right, I did say child pornography should be illegal. But ONLY because they are a minor. And even then, as they grow older, I personally feel, it becomes more and more of a grey area. At age 16, you could argue they are able to concent rationally as at that age, in our modern time, they probably understand sex.

    To my case, all censorship aside from self-censorship (as, you chose to censor yourself), but even then I do not like it, while not necessarily "bad" per say, I do not agree to it. For example, if you wanted to go into the middle of Detroit, and rally forth the KKK, go ahead. That is within your right. Just as it is within the right of everyone else to gather together to rally against them, so long as it is non-violent.

    And for the record, I support all forms of hentai and pornography. Sure, I don’t watch a lot of it, and some of it down right creeps me out, but I still say it has the right to exist, unless a crime was committed. Such as actually raping someone, and distributing it as porn.

    Overall, free speech IS a double-edged sword. Use it irresponsibly, and it may well come back to bite you in the ass.

  41. 0
    NovaBlack says:


    from what i read there were 2 copies on (not something which made Vaz’s original claims of it being widely available even more bizaare

  42. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    got to say.. its 100% up to amazon what they do. Its their store they can sell what they wish.


    Howeverm to everyone who says this game should be banned, yet has fought in the past for our right to play violent video games such as GTA…. you are a hypocrite. Simple as that.

  43. 0
    catboy_j says:

    I’m amused that this poll will undoubtably be taken in the end as A black and white morality while many people are voting based on what they think the company was in their right to do. And I still say I wanna know why GP thinks it was the right thing to do.

  44. 0
    CyberSkull says:

    I voted no, but what I want to know is did the product in question violate the Amazon ToS? If it did, then it was the right call. It pretty much was the right call to make, even though I disagree with it. Amazon isn’t obligated to sell anything by a third party and more than likely has a right of refusal in the ToS. It was the right business decision, but the wrong speech decision.

    I find myself understanding and agreeing with both sides of the argument, but I personally have to side with the speech camp.

  45. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    The fact all other adult products are left untouched makes this a mess…. this is a reactionary measure to save face….


    And whats worse people are voting yes becuse they think the question being voted on is "dose amazon have the right" and not "was amazon right"……..*sigh*


    Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.

  46. 0
    mykalgaidin says:

    On a personal level, anything depicting pedophilia is abhorrent.  But I find it interesting that you are arguing that censorship isn’t a black and white issue (a statement I agree with) yet expecting me to give you black and white answers.  If I answer yes, it should be, you’d come back with "you’re going against your own argument".  If I answer no, it shouldn’t be, you’d say that I was condoning child pornography, something that offends me to my very core.

    Life itself isn’t black and white.  You can’t hold a checklist of what’s right and wrong up to every single situation that arises.  There are very few hard and fast answers.  Grey areas abound, and it’s up to each of us as thinking individuals navigate those areas.


  47. 0
    jkdjr25 says:

    I voted yes on this survey, and I do support a publisher’s right to produce a product. However that doesn’t mean a retailer should have to sell it. I’m pretty sure that if enough people complained the other products, like Bible Black, would be taken down as well.

    Opponents of material like Rapeplay also have the right to speak out against it, and that seems to be a fact that’s forgotten or ignored whenever a subject like this comes up.

  48. 0
    GrimCW says:

    i don’t think its right in the terms of its merely a product of virtual reality, but in the sense of decency and the fact its their web site, i agree it was the right way to go.

    they had the right to block it and took that right into effect.

    though i find the product appalling, i do disagree people should slam it overly like it really hurts reality in any way whatsoever.


  49. 0
    State says:

    Uou talk about a hatred of censorship, child pornography is censored, but you use a get-out clause by saying that it should be made illegal through other means, but at the end of the day that is still censorship. I am stating that not all censorship is bad and that it is not a black and white issue, there are simply too many people stating "all censorship is bad" when it simply isn’t and child pornography is case in point (censorship exists to help protect children).

    The reason why a game about sexual situations with children is not allowed is because sex with a minor is not allowed at all, it doesn’t matter whether consent exists or not. And quite frankly that is a game (or rather interactive pornography) that I wish never to see made and it would make me question the thoughts of the people that made it.

  50. 0
    Littlemog says:

    If we take an example of two games, side by side, we see that the rape game is a lot more realistic:

    GTA seems to be the big one people are comparing; it hasn’t got the most brilliant AI, there’s no forensics to track you back to where you came from, there’s comic relief in most of it.

    The rape game is (at least, I’ve read that it is) entirely serious. It’s realistic enough to have blood when you rape a virgin, and detailed down to the tears in the kid’s eyes. (I’m going by wikipedia and Something Awful here). You don’t get caught by the police, somewhat like GTA if you’re successful, but in Rapelay it’s not because the AI is stupid, it’s because, like most rape victims, they’re too scared to go to the police.

    Additionally, the rules in the real world are established much, much more when it comes to murder than rape. At what age did you first hear "murder", and at what age, "Rape"? (…if rape was the first then I’ve just footbulletted, but lets take the average kid)

    So while we play GTA, the majority of us know, 100% that killing is wrong, this is only a catharcism. I would have known that when I was 5 (and allowed to play such games. Er. Ahem) The potential problem comes with a game like Manhunt, where you get rewarded for killing innocents so if you already have a screw loose, that just makes it worse.

    Sexual rules of conduct are established much, much later in life for most people (say, teenage years). Therefore the number of people that aren’t 100% on conduct is slightly higher. Not to mention rape is much more difficult to prove and therefore to 1- get justice and 2- prevent the rapist attacking again. Teenagers that aren’t taught properly (and increasingly they aren’t) learn these ‘rules’ through heresay, which can be skewed especially where real consent is concerned.

    I know far, far more people that have been raped or have family that have been raped, than have been murdered. Statistics might suggest otherwise, but ~8/10 of these people never reported it.


    Once you start getting society to understand the rules of sexual conduct a bit better, then it’s safer to sit "sexual violence" and "violence" next to each other.

  51. 0
    CMiner says:

    It’s not censorship, it is a company deciding it is not in the best interest of their company to carry a certain product, or allow said product to be sold on their site.


    It is no different from the code of conduct here.  It isn’t censorship when a mod erases a comment for violating that code.

  52. 0
    Littlemog says:

    People assume that men can’t if they don’t want to, and therefore he must want to. (Completely ignoring the fact that women can’t, comfortably, if they don’t want to. The female defence mechanism of ‘CLENCH!’ is flawed in that, it’s still possible, it’s just terribly painful.)

    That might be true on one level (the hormonal one) but as you say, he may want to save his first time, etc etc. Arousal cannot be taken to mean "Yes" unless the word "yes" is explicitly spoken.

    The assumption that men are hormonal, always up for it animals is just as harmful to men as "she’s revealing flesh, therefore she must want it and it is impossible for it to be considered ‘rape’" Not to mention the social paranoia of men that seems to be surfacing more and more.

    And that’s not even considering rape with tools, gay rape, and drugged rape.


    (I was one of those paranoid-of-men people once. Yikes. Looking back, I offended huge amounts of people just by being absolutely terrified of being in the same room as them.)

  53. 0
    Spartan says:

    I believe murder is none consenting but it still happens a lot in all forms of media. I don’t know about you folks but I would rather be raped than murdered and then maybe raped…  


    "The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" – Herodotus

  54. 0
    Littlemog says:

    Ah. I was under the impression from the wording that there were alternate endings to the two negative ones. If you have a freeform phase, does it allow you to rape forever or is it timed to get you a bad ending?

    I wouldn’t dare play it; I’m sensitive to such material and it would probably put me off for about a month. Though obviously it’s helpful to hear to opinions of those that can and will play the game.

    In GTA there’s the risk factor: you get killed lots, you get arrested lots. For the most part, you’re not killing innocents (not that that’s really good justification for killing people, although someone shooting at you first might be read as "consent to have a fight").

    And you’re detached somewhat because you know certain aspects of it aren’t nearly realistic (no forensics, silly police AI, etc)


    The disturbing thing about a rape game is that the female body is a mystery to most women, nevermind men. (At least, with sex ed nowadays). So certain ‘half truths’ are reinforced and without the alternative information (again, at what age did your school start teaching you "it’s bad to rape" or "bodily fluids do not equal consent" as opposed to "it’s bad to hit other people.").


    Basically, it’s more the combination of a lack of information, or lack of willingness to discuss the issues, in society, rather than sexual violence as a standalone. It’s just a dangerous combination; if you don’t know what reasonable sexual behaviour is or your views are skewed to believe harmful sexual behaviour is ok, then this only reinforces those thoughts.

    If you know what good sexual behaviour is and therefore would not be swayed, you’re good to go. I have to admit I’m rather glad the game’s not that enjoyable.

  55. 0
    Kincyr says:

    It is a double standard that the most people don’t have the same reaction to women raping men; possibly because a lot of people don’t seem to think it exists.

    or that in a lot of fictional cases, there isn’t any violence involved. Examples include that the woman was fugly or the guy was gay or wanting to save his first time for someone else.

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  56. 0
    Ashkihyena says:

    If thats true, then I’d change my vote, but at the moment I’m still thinking its because of Vaz bitching about it, so at the moment, my vote still remains no until I hear something different.

  57. 0
    Kincyr says:

    the developers never intended Rapelay to be sold outside Japan. For all we know, THEY could’ve contacted Amazon and asked them to remove it

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  58. 0
    Littlemog says:

    Would Amazon actually know that these games contain rape? I find it highly unlikely that someone at headoffice plays all these games and watches all these films to moderate them.

    I’d be interested to know what responce Amazon would make if someone were to submit a complaint or query pointing out this hypocrasy.

  59. 0
    Charax says:

    "I think, absolutely, that the game should not have been made; unless its intention is completely ironic (ie, that at the end the protagonist dies or somehow gets what he deserves) which it doesn’t appear to be, from what I’ve read. "

    Well, having actually played the game (kill me if you want) there are two endings – suicide, or one of the girls kills you. When was the last time GTA showed you the consequences of your actions (beyond saying "hey, murder is fun, you get into some great car chases!")?

    And frankly, if RapeLay is a Rape Simulator I can’t understand why anyone would rape anyone else, the game’s boring as hell.

  60. 0
    Littlemog says:

    As I’ve said to the poster above; Rape is not consenting. If things, including ficticious things, are to be banned on the basis of all included parties concenting, then surely pornography that depicts or encourages rape aught also to be banned.

    The only obvious objection is that they’re actors, and that a child actor cannot possibly give consent to act in such a production. However, that then would leave it completely legal to have drawn or CG child porn. If you can’t have art or CG child porn because of consent, why can you have rape art or CG?

  61. 0
    Littlemog says:

    The very definition of rape is that the victim isn’t consenting. If they consent (without coersion), it’s not rape: it’s sex.

    In this case, why is it ok to have a rape game with adult women, but not have a child porn game?

    I’ve heard through other comments (I can’t cite the accuracy) one of the characters of this game is a minor anyway. My previous question still stands, though.

  62. 0
    Littlemog says:

    First of all: in general, it’s better to have self regulation (you could, if you tried hard enough, still get the game somewhere, without committing an offense) than no self-regulation and the government steps in with its club.

    I think people are more scared when it comes to sexually related influences, than social ones such as murder.

    I think, absolutely, that the game should not have been made; unless its intention is completely ironic (ie, that at the end the protagonist dies or somehow gets what he deserves) which it doesn’t appear to be, from what I’ve read.

    Part of that is a knee-jerk reaction; rape? interactive rape? Rape that you, buy playing the game, choose to do (albeit ficticiously) and then get rewarded for? That actually makes me feel quite sick.

    And rape… for enjoyment? Is this game an art form game, or is it an entertainment game. Last time I checked, commercial games were entertainment based.

    Who is going to enjoy a game where you rape someone who “apparently” deserves it. Feminists (the reasonable ones that don’t kick you in the shins for holding the door open) are fighting to get rid of the idea that a woman is responsible for her own rape (to suggest this also suggests all men are slavvering dogs that couldn’t possibly restrain themselves when they see a bit of flesh, and unless you’re a feminazi, you know that’s not true), and then this game is all about getting revenge because (according to wikipedia) he got arrested for groping someone on a train.

    A rape scene in which the message is “It is ok to rape in X circumstances. Rapist is the good guy.” is far more disturbing than in a film or game where the rapist is the bad guy.

    The obvious arguement is that “how is non-sexual violence any better?”
    Socially, we KNOW, and we are taught out loud that it is not ok to punch someone (for no reason) or stab someone. That’s something taught into us from an early age.

    At what age did your parents tell you that it’s not ok to rape someone? At what age did your school explain to you proper sexual etiquette. They didn’t. And that’s why sexual violence is worse than violence alone; there’s much less guidance, socially, for things of a sexual nature so things like this hit much, much closer to home.

    Sorry if that’s far, far too long. I do hope I don’t come across as a feminazi. It is a double standard that the most people don’t have the same reaction to women raping men; possibly because a lot of people don’t seem to think it exists.

  63. 0
    Charax says:

    Well, I suppose it depends on if you believe Amazon removed the games because they truely object to their content, or just because people were making a fuss.

    If it’s the former, then they should at the very least remove all other games containing rape from sale (and possibly other media containing rape too. If it’s the latter then it’s not hypocritical to allow the sale of the other games because their basis for removing the first one wasn’t an ethical one, it was a PR one.

    Of course, they’re always going to claim it’s the former, because that makes them look good.

  64. 0
    4nBlue says:

    Actually there is plenty of games involving rape available in US. Just to give you some examples from Amazon: (rape in a very negative context)


    I think that Amazon has the right to decide what they want to be sold trough their site, but I can’t help but feel that they are quite hypocrites by only removing two used copies of the one game while continuing selling other games involving rape if the rape was reason for removal.

    I think the removal has been kind of blown out of proportion because they only removed two used copies. You can still get the game from ( and other sites that are willing to ship it outside of Japan.

  65. 0
    Father Time says:

    I don’t really think there is a right move and a wrong move.

    It’s their site they can do with it what they please and not letting a grand total of two people sell their obscure used porno game over their site hardly seems like a big deal.

    This is the internet folks and I’m sure ebay would be more than willing to let them sell rapeplay.

    If I was in their shoes not sure what I would do but this hardly seems like a loss.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  66. 0
    State says:

    So everyone should vote "no" because you believe all hell well break loose instead? Isn’t that censorship in itself? As many have said the actual question is debatable and what does "right" actually mean, is Amazon morally right? Does Amazon have the right to decide what to and not to sell? Is it the right business decision for Amazon? Is it the right PR decision?

  67. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    As was stated above me. ^

    I’m a huge advocate of non-censorship. I think there should not be any form of censorship except for self-censorship (because you are not forced into it, through laws and legal action and such). However, I dispise child porn.

    Not because it is pornography, not because it is obscene, as I would love to have all obscenities laws done away with. But because, it is a child, not a consenting adult. Trying to turn it into "If you support freedom of speech, you support child porn" is something of red herring. Because it can be, and is, illegalized for other reasons.

  68. 0
    State says:

    So what would your opinion be of a game that depicted paedophillia, as no really child would be harmed, would you consider that okay or would you want that censored? After all the game in question depicts rape for the purpose of men to masturbate over (there’s no consent there, although again it is acted and therefore not real).

    But really the point is this: Censorship is not a black and white issue (there are times when quite rightfully it is required, and times when it shouldn’t exist). For people that claim all too quickly that all censorship is bad and that freedom of speech should always be allowed need to remember one thing, it does have its positives.

  69. 0
    Ashkihyena says:

    I don’t know whose voting yes, but they’re wrong, especally since all thats going to do is open the floodgates for politicans and soccer moms to bitch about the other adult stuff on their site, so, I voted no.

  70. 0
    mykalgaidin says:

    The reason child porn is illegal is because it doesn’t involve consenting adults.  The worst thing anyone can do is force a child (or anybody unable to give informed consent) to do anything sexually.

    As long as consenting adults are involved, I don’t care.

    One thing to keep in mind: the rights of one person can never override the rights of another.  A pedophile’s right to freedom of expression does not come before a child’s right to be free from abuse.


  71. 0

    Hrrm. Well, they are a business, and this kind of negative attention, regardless of the fact that they themselves are not directly selling the game, could be considered bad for the site’s image, and bad for sales.

    Still, it seems that banning the sale of one item of a certain content and genre, but continuing to sell other items of similar content is silly, and I really hate the idea of something getting banned because people get offended, regardless of how nasty it is.

    A good business and PR decision: I’ll say yes.

    A good free speech decision: No. I may dislike it, but no one can make me (or anyone else) play it.

    A good moral/ethical decision: Relative. My morals are based heavily in liberty and freedoms, so to me, no.

    Luckily, ther are still no rape games available or produced in America or the UK for people to get pissed about. Right?


    -Remember kids, personal responsibility is for losers! -The Buck Stops Here.

  72. 0
    State says:

    Should you are against censorship, but agree with censoring child porn? It’s amazing how many people see censorship as a bad thing and rant about it yet at the same time they agree with the censorship of certain things (such as child porn). I think people need to get over this "all censorship is bad" ideal and understand that it does have positive effects (such as helping protect children from abuse).

    People talk about "freedom of speech" but then quickly realise that it is "freedom of speech" to a certain degree.

  73. 0
    Neeneko says:

    It’s a complicated question to be reduced to a simple ‘right’->yes/no.

    Which perspective of ‘right’ is the one here? Right moral thing? Right short term buisness decision? Right long term buisness decision?   Right for the game industry?

    Legally they were well within thier rights, period.

    Moral? That is going to be very subjective.

    Short term? Probably since it helps deflect current outrage.

    Long term? Harder to say.  Without a clear policy on how much offense it takes relative to the commission they make from a seller, they have just oppened up a very arbitrary removal process and might have just killed their own safe harbor protection.

    For the game industry?  Within any group struggling for protection there is always the tradeoff between stanind together with the more radical elements, or distancing one’s self from them.   It is never an easy balance since you do it wrong and you make your opponent much stronger.  IMHO this again gets down to short term vs long term.. and in this case short term this probably helps the industry since it distances them from H games in the public’s mind.. but on the other hand it also admits that the critics are right and some games shouldn’t exist, esp ones geard to adults.. and once that door is open it is hard to shut again.  So long term, this was not the right move.


  74. 0
    paketep says:

    No. They have plenty of adult material, of the same type. Either they ban them all, or they don’t ban anything at all.

    I find pityful that they retired the game after a fucktard like Vaz did yet another performance for the press. My opinion of Leicester East goes lower every time I listen to any of his stupid rants.

    I’m tired of all this hypocrisy and over-the-top political correctness. It’s a game for adults, and adults can buy whatever they want (except pedophilia, of course).

  75. 0
    Vordus says:

    To those citing the first amendment, what does the first amendment have to do with this? The seller may have been US based, but it was being sold to the UK on, which is hosted on a network cluster in Ireland.

  76. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    My analogies are completely relevant because they illustrate the point I’m making.  Even if they were irrelevant, they still do not invalidate my point: 

    "It is unfair and downright silly to condemn an entire genre because of one subset of the genre that you don’t like." 

    Furthermore, had my analogies actually been irrelevant, that still in no way would have made your point – it simply would have failed to illustrate mine.

    Andrew Eisen

  77. 0
    Touchdown Graves says:

    it’s not a question of whether i like them. I am saying they are irrelevant to the conversation. YOu would have gotten that if you weren’t dumb. You made my point.

  78. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    Whether you like my analogies or not, my point still stands: "It is unfair and downright silly to condemn an entire genre because of one subset of the genre that you don’t like."


    Andrew Eisen

  79. 0
    Touchdown Graves says:

    toilet humor is meant to be dumb. JT isn’t a lawyer anymore so that one doesn’t hold up. Spousal abuse is actually the opposite of what marriage is for.


    Grown men jacking it to a tentecle rapeing a school girl. That’s dumb.

  80. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    Easily.  That’s as absurd as saying "comedy is dumb because of toilet humor," "lawyers are dumb because of Jack Thompson," or "marriage is dumb because of spousal abuse."

    It is unfair and downright silly to condemn an entire genre because of one subset of the genre that you don’t like.

    To be clear, it’s totally fine if you do personally feel that tentacle rape, hentai, or even all of anime is dumb, even if you’re unable to articulate your reasons.  No one’s forcing you to watch it.

    But advocating a ban on everything you personally don’t like?  Well, that’s crossing the line and infringing on others’ rights (the ban itself, not your opinion that it should be banned).


    Andrew Eisen

  81. 0
    Monte says:

     Or it’s because you have no good argument and prefer just laughing and throwing insults, lacking the maturity to stand in a debate and defend your views

    An absolutist mindset, not unlike JT’s… believe that you are 100% correct, anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot not worth speaking to, and completly unwilling to listen to any level of reasoning; after to be willing to listen to such a thing would mean you are open to the possibility that you might in fact be wrong… totally unwilling to even believe that a middle ground on a point of view exists… it really is a mindset that leads to a lot of problems

  82. 0
    Monte says:

    I’m sure you do… figures that you would not even care to debate such a thing that you feel so certain in… really i don’t think i have ever met anyone won who hated anime and was also willing to debate on it; they just make their claim, declare themselves right and then leave without listening to a single counter point.

  83. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    Except your reference doesn’t apply, trying to connect Newtonian physics to the idea and claiming it’s the "same scenario," your logic is riddled with fallacies, and so, your argument as a whole is void. Because what he said was correct, does not make you correct.

    Bitch all you want, you’re idiocy precedes you. This argument is over, because you are a failure at it.

    I have more interesting arguments to tend to. You failed as soon as you started typing. Not worth my time arguing with someone who has no argument to present.

  84. 0
    Touchdown Graves says:

    Actually I have very well thought out opinions on anime being dumb. You are dumb for assuming my accusations are baseless. Finally, no, I don’t care to make an arguement for anime being dumb because each of us have already made up their mind on the situation. There isn’t a single thing we can say to each other to change each other’s opinion. Therefore arguing about it would be dumb.

  85. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    I cannot even express, just how deeply ludicrious that is, tapping into egotisticalism and breaking ground on even greater irrationale.

    You, sir, have proven not only how shallow you are, and while you maybe, maybe, are smart in some perspective, you as a person, is incredibly far from it as a whole.

  86. 0
    TJLK says:

    William Shatner has to be the hero that defiantly stands against the banhammer.  Without doubt the banhammer must be wielded by the great Sir Thomas Sean Connery.

    This conversation has now gone out of control in quite an amazing way.

  87. 0
    Monte says:

    your blatant, baseless and broad statement that all anime dumb is in and of itself dumb; therefore such a statement should be banned…. though really care to make an actual argument for anime being dumb

  88. 0
    Ghost Coins says:

    Oh, oh…Michael Bay to direct.  EXPLOSIONS :-)


    To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful. Edward R. Murrow

  89. 0
    Wimblesaurus says:

    Sure.  They can do whatever the fuck they want (unless they had a contract with Illusion Software barring them from discontinuing sale).  It’s their website.  Who buys porn anyway?

    No, Luke, I AM the Walrus

  90. 0
    Soldat_Louis says:

    On one hand, I voted "yes". Like other people said before me, it’s Amazon’s website and they do what they want. And I personally believe they did the right thing.

    On the other hand, I think there are people who had to do "the right thing", but unfortunately didn’t : the video game industry. They should have declared publicly that :

    1/ They don’t (and never have) created, nor published, games like that.

    2/ Such games are not to be found anywhere in game retail stores, at least in most countries over the World except Japan.

    3/ People at Illusion Software, who produce most of these games, aren’t members of the "game industry" as we know it (ESA, IGDA, IEMA, EPLSA, etc…), and, as it was noticed by other readers, even themselves never meant to sell their games outside Japan.

    4/ In short, "the game industry" has nothing to do with it. And there’s no rape in the video games they’re responsible for. Period.

    The problem is that, right now, ESA is too busy bitching about piracy, as if it was their only cause of concern.

  91. 0
    mr_mlk says:

    If my reading of Wiki is correct this contains the rape of a 10yr girl. There is really that in a movie on Amazon?

    If so post an email to Amazon and see if they remove it.

  92. 0
    GrlGmr says:

    Is anyone else disturbed that there are books and movies out there that cover pretty much the exact same subject material that Amazon cheerfully sells? But OMG, since it’s a video game, that’s different!

  93. 0
    olstar18 says:

    Just as I thought you havn’t made the connection that he is trying to get a reaction out of you. In reality he either doesn’t care or he might actually like it but he has more fun getting fools mad.

  94. 0
    olstar18 says:

    I have never heard of a single manga made by del ray. I have heard of several translations that they published but that it compltely different. Do you actually know anything about anime and manga. As for why it was labeled as anime it could be possible that its because it was made in the same style as animatrix. And if you say anime haters one more time I’m gonna strangle you with my mouse cord. You have yet to give a single example of someone who is not a troll and does not have a legitimate excuss like over enthusiastic fans or the low quality of animation. The ones who have a legitimate reason to dislike anime are unlikely to ban it but the ones who believe it is wrong or evil would. Find me one like that and make sure he aint a troll.

  95. 0
    mdo7 says:


    well, they can turn against video game if JT or game critics attack anime/manga or anime-related game like when Vaz blasted the H-game.  Look, I’ve been looking at anime haters message and comment on video.  It sometime can tell who they really are if they   I even found out that they are willing to hate anything that become a anime or manga.  If for example, next GTA take place in Japan and they use anime-style animation.  Anime Haters (most, not all) will hate GTA for that and may never buy GTA again just because one GTA has anime like design.  I’ve seen anime haters taking hate on Batman(ever watch Batman: Gotham Knights) just because it became a anime, then I saw comments and message saying they never want to watch another Batman movie again, or read another Batman comic again just because it became a anime, stupid huh.  Hating Batman just because it became a anime.  Trust me, I did a lot of surveillance on anime haters on Youtube, I manage to create a couple of anime haters psychological profiles.    

  96. 0
    mdo7 says:

    uh, it did you never heard of Batman: Gotham Knights? It was the only anime from DC and Warner Bros. Hell, even ANN listed as anime. The crew from behind the scene said they wanted it as a anime. Because of Gotham Knights, Marvel Comic is planning to team up with Japan to do a Iron Man and Wolverine anime. Marvel is also teaming up with Del Rey Manga to make a Wolverine and a X-Men manga. So if most anime haters can hate Batman because it became a anime, they may hate Marvel just because they made their characters into manga and anime.

  97. 0
    JustChris says:

    As geek culture dictates, anime haters are a subset of gamers, but video game haters is close to being a null set of anime fans. I’ve never seen an anime fan who has zero interest in games, but they probably are very rare.


  98. 0
    Kincyr says:

    You never met this anime hater, J0seJuanPedroSmith (I wouldn’t be suprised if that is JT. He is similar to JT) on youtube.  This guys hate both anime and video game.

    ironically, this guy is friends with a major FF7 buff

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  99. 0
    mdo7 says:

    Hannah, I met a lot of anime hater who hate Batman, even former fan just because it became an anime. I know there is no conspiracies about banning anime. But sometime haters may go to far.

  100. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    ANime sucks and you sucks for caring this much about it.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  101. 0
    Hannah says:

    He’s a random internet troll.  Why do you care what he thinks?  He probably just finds it funny how worked up anime fans get.  They’re freakin’ cartoons… admittedly some are quite good, but most are terrible, and yet some people devote their lives to the things.  It’s even worse when they then proceed to idolise Japanese culture — I fully support learning about other cultures and even mimicking some aspects, but some people, particularly white anime fans, take it way too far.  And that is why they are a) fun to mock, and b) seen as vaguely distasteful.  Again, there is no conspiracy, just people who find your lifestyle funny/pathetic and trolls who take pleasure in making you freak out.

  102. 0
    Hannah says:

    Dude, there is no anti-anime conspiracy.  There are people who don’t like it, but while they may consider anime fans a wee bit odd (and realistically, most of them are — just look around at the average anime convention and count the number of morbidly obese men/women dressed like Japanese schoolgirls or worse), I don’t think anyone SERIOUSLY tries to get anime banned these days.  They just get sick of all the weeaboos gushing over it and squeaking at each other in terrible Japanese.

  103. 0
    olstar18 says:

    Then I am sure you can tell me his reasons for wanting anime banned. Well lets hear them. How about combining the two threads running through this. Your saying their comments on how much they hate anime prove they hate anime. Again how can you prove they are not simply posting what will get the most entertaining reaction out of anime fans.

  104. 0
    mdo7 says:

    No I’ve been monitoring this guy for a while studying his attack, his message and comments. Do you need a witness to back up my support? I can get notified him to talk to you.

  105. 0
    mdo7 says:

    I’m not, u kinda trick me into it. You wouldn’t let me use hater so I use extremist as a substitute word. Have you seen anime hater being like JT. I’m not an extremist, but I’m trying to prevent a new JT for hating anime. I’m not the only one who had analyze their profile. You never read their message or comment on how much they hate anime a lot like JT or game hating critics. I know how they think, u got to think like them, like criminal psychologist can think how criminal behave.

  106. 0
    olstar18 says:

    Troll *hint hint hint hint hint hint hint hint hint hint* I know a few jt supporters none of them refer to him like that so most likely you are either exaggerating or he is trying to get this kind of reaction out of you.

  107. 0
    olstar18 says:

    I KNEW IT you used a word that can apply to you. You sir are an extremist. If somene does not like or maybe even hates something you like you take it as an attack. Some of these people wanting it banned have reasons for disliking it some are doing what everyone on the net does and exaggerate others are trolls and then there is the incredibly small number that I have never met in my wanderings of the net that actualy hate anime. Given my time in chatrooms forums and other places you would think I’d have met one but I haven’t. I’ve met a few trolls but no one tha actually hated anime .

  108. 0
    mdo7 says:

    Yes, but this guy want anime and video game ban. This guy support JT like a god to him. JT could have this guy has a apprentice. When was the last time you met a anime hater who hate video game like JT.

  109. 0
    olstar18 says:

    I have also heard people taht wanted mondays ice cream baseball football curling politicians lawyers gasoline oil electricity spongebob and guys named clarence banned. So what. They dont like anime what is there reason. I know of a few guys that dislike it mainly because of the fans. I also know one guyt hat would love to see anime banned for ruining the storylines of manga and for adding idiotic and unrelated storylines to good manga (naruto).

  110. 0
    mdo7 says:

    Look this attack gives fuel to those extremists. I know I been monitoring those guys for sometime. But you have to think like them. Those extremists, they attack anime and hentai. This is what they want, someone to attack anime/manga/hentai. So they can get what they want, ban or smear it’s reputation.

  111. 0
    olstar18 says:

    He didn’t attack anme in general he attacked the fact that a hentai rape game was listed. Now seriously enough with the whole anime hater garbage. There is no movement against anime like you seem to think. Now pause and breath. Ok first I forbid you to say the word hater in any responses to this. Second you should look at a few of the videos like this one Not everyone that dislikes anime does so without reason. Personaly I dont like most of the anime that has been brought over stateside. A large portion of it is for children (digimon) or been watered down for children (sailor moon) and thats ignoring the changes made to dialog so their speech syncs.

  112. 0
    mdo7 says:

    I said I’m sorry, but this guy really hate video game also. I have proof and a witness to back it up. U never met a anime hater who hate video game. He said video game suck also. He put up a lot of hateful message on anime and video game. By the way he said JT is the light, God and his lord.

  113. 0
    mdo7 says:

    I’m talking about anime haters who hate anime like on the same level as JT and game haters. Those people are my concern. You’re right, I’ve been a little paranoid, I’m sorry. When a game critic like Vaz attack anime. It send message to anime hater extremists that they are on their side. I’ve seen anime hater hating video game. It possible anime haters can support JT or Vaz if they attack anime for them publicly, then the haters will have someone to look up to.

  114. 0
    olstar18 says:

    I’m sure you actuallylistened to him instead of looked at the fact that he said anime sucks and said he is a hater. Some people like john wayne some like clint eastwood some like both. He simply doesn’t like anime. Personaly I’d say he simply watched to many anime’s like one piece or digimon but still he is entitled to his own preferance. By the way I kinda hate fanboys to. For some reason they always go on about pokemo or yugioh and ignore the classics.

  115. 0
    olstar18 says:

    Ok mind turnin downt he paranoia. Seriously most people that do not like anime are not anime haters in fact with only 2 notable exceptions most people I have met who do not like anime are simply uninterested. The two exceptions see them as cartoons and therefore entertainment for children. Now hentai I know several people that hate it most of whom hate pornography period. Oh and by the way I voted that I think it they were right to pull it since its their business and because it isn’t just hentai but rape hentai.

  116. 0
    mdo7 says:


    Anime haters hasn’t used this word yet, but someone will.  Anime hater targeted hentai also.  I have met anime haters who hate video game and they are not over 40 years old.  It’s only a matter of time before anime haters may take the word out of JT and Grossman’s mouth.       

  117. 0
    mdo7 says:


    Actually, it may be possible.  You never met this anime hater, J0seJuanPedroSmith (I wouldn’t be suprised if that is JT. He is similar to JT) on youtube.  This guys hate both anime and video game.  There could be more anime hater who have a grudge against video game.  You have to think like a anime hater, step into the mind of them.  It’s not illogical, when was the last time you met a anime hater who hate video games?  I did, and I met a lot of anime hater who have "Jack Thompson complex" mentality.  Those anime haters with that complex can become a traitor to the video game community in various way (for example: Xbox live Marketplace put more anime on the video store, American RPG taking influences from JRPG and anime-style drawing. Next GTA take place in Japan, with cel-shaded anime animation design).  When I heard that Vaz attack a H-game, I know the anime haters may end up forgiving this guy for any video game bashing he did and praising him for the attack on H-game.  I’ve been monioring them for quite a while and developing a bit of psychological profile on them.  There is a chance that anime hater will become traitors to the video game community.  You might not agree with me, but I know for sure the video game critics may target anime/manga next.

    When I wanted to find out how did Vaz found out the game.  I thought a anime hater who hate video game has decided to turn traitor by showing Vaz this game and giving anime haters to maybe side with video game critics like Vaz.  But now it wasn’t anime hater for now.  But maybe later in the future, some anime hater who decided to hate video game may forge a alliance with JT or video game critics.  If I was a anime hater and I found out JT attack anime/manga, I would side with him (If I was a anime hater).     

  118. 0
    olstar18 says:

    You might want to change that from anime hater to hentai/pornography hater. As for the question I’ve never heard of anyone call anime murder simulation, video games on the other hand. My grandfather is convinced that violent video games are just as good as child pornography. As for how that connection makes sense and why he would knowingly say that several of the people he cares about are just as good as pedophiles for playing these games I do not know. Didn’t follow up the comment due to the presence of children.

  119. 0
    mdo7 says:


    Ok, so it wasn’t an anime hater who came forward with this story.  That’s good, but still somewhere on Youtube, anime haters are praising Vaz for his attack on H-game.  Calling him a hero for anti-anime cause.

  120. 0
    State says:

    Vaz found out about it after an investigation in the Belfast Telegraph found the game and sensationalized the story somewhat. No doubt they or someone else knew about anti-games campaigner Vaz and told him about the story.

  121. 0
    mdo7 says:


    It could have been random chance.  But there’s no way by accident, Vaz could have stumbled that game by accident, someone must have show it to him.  I think it’s a anime hater who have a grudge against video game.  I have met anime haters who hate video game on youtube, there are many way for a anime haters to become a video game haters also.  You never met a anime hater who hate video game or even lost faith in video game industry.  It’s possible a anime hater could have betray video gamers.  There are many ways for that to happen.

    -more anime appearing on PSN video store and Xbox Live video Marketplace. that would fuel em to think the video game industry and anime industry are in it together.  That would make anime haters feel like the video game industry are supporting anime.

    -Remember, there is a rumor that the next GTA may take place in Japan.  That would give anime hater sayin OMG, "GTA’s going anime-style, it’s evil"

    -Xbox 360 has been getting more JRPG with anime-style drawing then PS3 or Wii.  That can also anger anime haters.

    -More american made game could use anime-influenced animation in the future.  X-blade, Mirror’s Edge.  Who knows, maybe Bethesda, Bioware, or 2K game may make a RPG game heavily influenced by JRPG and Final Fantasy with anime-style animation.


    E.Zachary Knight, you got to think like a anime haters.  You seen a lot of anime on Xbox Live marketplace, that could make any anime hater betray video game.  think like a hater for a moment, you found out video game industry support anime.  What do you do?  For me, if I was a anime hater I would have no choice but to betray all video gamers and have a video game hater attack anime by attacking a anime-theme video game.  I would have done what that anime hater probably shown to Vaz.  Have him attack a H-game then send a message to anime hater to betray video game.  I know anime haters, they are a threat to anime industry.  They are a bigger threat when they find out that a video game critics/haters attack a anime/manga-theme game or anime/manga.  I know these haters, some of them have something I called "Jack Thompson complex".

    That’s why I think a anime hater could have been the one that shown Vaz that H-game, there’s no way Vaz could have found that himself, unless he stumbled by random chance.  But still, I’m keeping my anime hater showing Vaz this game so he can attack anime for the haters. 

  122. 0
    mr_mlk says:

    So do you think Amazon should be forced to stock it?

    What about other shops that sell DVDs, should they also be forced to stock it? How about the Christain shop down the road from me. They self-censor quite heavily, never seen a Koran in the window but the area has a high number of Muslims, I’m sure they would sell.

  123. 0
    olstar18 says:

    Tell the trut I think self censorship is one of the only 2 forms that should be legal. The other is consumer censorship. If you dont want to see it dont buy it. And as for self censorship if they don’t want to sell it they dont have to its there business they can run it as they see fit.

  124. 0
    Bennett Beeny says:

    Amazon is within its rights to ban the game from the site, but that doesn’t make what they did right.

    Heck, the hentai anime ‘Bible Black’ has rape scenes galore, and diabolism and other depraved stuff, and in my opinion (after having watched it) it’s garbage, but it’s available at, and that’s exactly how things should be.

    Censorship – ESPECIALLY self-censorship (which is what is doing here) is not something to be supported.  If I want to censor myself from getting Bible Black or this rape game, that should be up to me, not  That’s how a liberal free market should work. has chosen, in this case, to exert a ‘dictat’ and to behave as a totalitarian power.  That is it’s right, but totalitarianism is not a good system, even for a business.

  125. 0
    mr_mlk says:

    It’s a bit hypocritical of them to allow the sales of one type of product that can be seen as "offensive" but not another.

    I don’t buy this. Levels of "offensive" exist. It is not binary. Nor is constant over time or people. So if X is (to them) very offenive it does not automatically mean they have to ban Y (which to you might be more offenive).

  126. 0
    Gift says:

    1 and 5, nothing else. Amazon are a business and anything that makes this many waves needs to be dealt with to protect their corporate image. Hypocrisy and freedom of speech don’t enter into it, Amazon has but one duty and it’s to their shareholders. They don’t need to be squeaky clean, just clean enough to keep the cash coming in. /shrug.




  127. 0
    Spartan says:

    I agree. Shooting, slicing, blowing up, disemboweling, genocide -etc… are all "OK" topics but rape is not? WTF?

    This strikes me as yet another religious sensibilities based decision. Fantasy is fantasy and reality for by far worse. By the censorship standard used here many movies would not be made nor romance novels or other "violent" acts.


    "The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" – Herodotus

  128. 0
    mdo7 says:

    Me three. But there one question: How did Vaz found out about the game? Did he just browse around

    Or did someone lend him a hand, maybe a anime hater could told him about the game. If a anime hater was behind this, then we got ourselves a traitor within the gaming community. It not a suprise that a anime hater would side with a game hater like Vaz. I met anime hater who hate video game also. I really wonder if anime haters would really become JT or video game hater successor. Has anyone ever hear any anime haters calling anime a “murder simulator” ?

  129. 0
    Arcanagos says:

    Well Said


    "Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend. Do it in the name of Heaven, Jack Thompson’ll justify it in the end." – nightwng2000

  130. 0
    nightwng2000 says:

    1.  It’s their site and they can do what they want.

    2.  It’s a bit hypocritical of them to allow the sales of one type of product that can be seen as "offensive" but not another.

    3.  It was a used product offered by an individual/private business rather than a product offered directly by, let alone "endorsed" by, itself.

    4.  It’s a fantasy game.  Like it or not, fantasy and reality are not the same thing.  The implication that one act in a fictional setting will not "spill over" into the real world while another one will is hypocritical and misleading.  Implying that someone who plays a game that contains the act of rape is "sick" and may want to commit rape in the real world but that another person who kills in the name of "God", such as in the "Left Behind" series, doesn’t want to go out an commit real murder in the name of "God" just shows where the REAL inability to distinguish reality and fantasy actually comes from.

    5.  It’s their site and they can do what they want.

    So, while I voted and believe in "No", because of my combined beliefs of Freedom of Speech, fantasy and reality are not the same thing, and it was a "used" game, I still wouldn’t put up a major fuss because of thier Right to do what they want with their own site.


    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  131. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    "Hardly, the fact that the word "censorship" has come up brings up the argument."

    Nonsense. Calling it censorship, with or without the double quotation marks, in no way implies that Amazon should be forced to carry the game. You’re putting words in people’s mouths and arguing against that instead of what they actually said.

  132. 0
    State says:

    Hardly, the fact that the word "censorship" has come up brings up the argument. It wasn’t simply that Amazon decided to stop the sale of the game from their website, it was claimed by many to be "censorship". It’s almost as if people believe that Amazon offer a public service to the people of America, and that they should sell this game in the name of "freedom of speech", that they are custodians of the American way and that of anti-censorship (although America freely censors many things). Amazon don’t have to follow these principles, they aren’t state owned, in no way is Amazon causing censorship for deciding not to sell a game.

  133. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    Huh? What? Who are you replying to, exactly? There’s not a single person here arguing "that Amazon should be forced to sell this product", so where is this particular rant coming from? It’s like you’re arguing against your own made-up opponent.

    *facepalm* *shakes head*

  134. 0
    mykalgaidin says:

    I believe that on Amazon’s own site, they have the right to sell whatever products they want.  They have that freedom.  If there’s a product that I have a problem with, I simply won’t purchase that product.  I have no interest in telling people how to live their lives, and in my view, nobody has that right.  If Amazon wants to pull a product from their shelves, that is their business.  If they want to place a product on their shelves, it is again, their business.  In the end, freedom is what matters.  If I want to swear, I will.  If you don’t want to hear me swear, don’t listen.  Besides, there’s nothing in the Constitution protecting your right to be free from being offended.

    As far as Amazon controlling the content that winds up in the hands of the public, I’m going to call bullshit.  In regards to their site, yes.  In regards to controlling the consumption of the populace, they don’t.  If you want something, regardless of how bizarre it may seem, chances are you can find somebody selling it, somebody making a website about it, and somebody writing slash-fiction about it.  There are more online stores out there than just Amazon.


  135. 0
    State says:

    So you believe that Amazon should be forced to sell this product simple to protect the pretense of "freedom of speech". It seems to me that you want everyone to be forced to accept and be forced to do certain things because if they don’t they are taking part in censorship. You seem to be saying that Amazon has this power over the American people that they control the content that people can get their hands on, and by Amazon deciding not to sell a product they are preventing the American population from getting hold of such item.

    Are you saying that a food shop that doesn’t sell guns is taking part in self-censorship? Are you saying that someone who decides not to swear is taking part in self-censorship?

  136. 0
    mykalgaidin says:

    You have a point.  I guess the point I was trying to make is that Amazon has the right to censor material on their own property.  I don’t agree with it, but there it is.


  137. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    Nobody here is suggesting that Amazon should be forced to carry this game.

    You speak as if censorship is synonymous with the illegal supression of speech, but in fact the word "censor" is far older than the first amendment, dating back to a time when censorship by governments was perfectly legal. The fact that censorship is now legally practiced by corporations doesn’t change the fact that it’s censorship.

  138. 0
    mykalgaidin says:

    Not really.  If a company controls it’s own website, that company is exercising it’s First Amendment rights.  The government (as an entity) is not covered under the First Amendment, which defines our protected modes of communication as citizens.

    Here’s the text: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    It defines "Congress" (i.e. the government) as the entity that is prohibited from restricting the rights (censoring) of the citizens (the people).  It doesn’t mention corporations.


  139. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    It would depend on who owned the right to the show. If the network owned the rights, it’s possible the supressed material would never be filmed in the first place, existing only in the form of a script. In that case, it would not be available for consumption. On the other hand, for stuff that were merely "edited for content" from an uncensored source, it would be a matter of buying it on DVD or watching it on a different channel.

    Exactly like it works now, except the government would have nothing to do with it.

  140. 0
    mykalgaidin says:

    So, if the content is censored, how is it still available for consumption?


  141. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    It wouldn’t be government regulation, but the content would still be absent from that particular network. Those who wish to view the supressed content would have to go elsewhere, just like they have to do now.

  142. 0
    mykalgaidin says:

    That would fall under cultural dictates, not governmental regulation.  Advertisers will do anything to sell their product.


  143. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    Perhaps there wouldn’t be official censors, but there still would be pressure from advertisers to restrict the kinds of content allowed on the air. Call it censorship or not, the end result is still that certain kinds of content don’t get to air.

  144. 0
    mykalgaidin says:

    True, but if the FCC didn’t mandate certain standards and practices, it’s my guess that there would be little to no censorship on television, depending on the cultural mores of the day.  However, it could be said that FCC regulations are a response to cultural pressure to control the content of television.


  145. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    That’s true to some degree, but not entirely. Different TV networks have different "standards and practices" with regard to censorship, and they’ll often go beyond the FCC’s regulations in prohibiting certain kinds of content. Network censors are not government agents, so while it’s correct to say that their job is "necessary" due to FCC-mandated censorship, we can’t really blame all of a network censor’s decisions on the government.

  146. 0
    mykalgaidin says:

    These "censors" are enforcing regulations put in place by the FCC (a branch of the government).


  147. 0
    Charax says:

    Absolutely – people stating that "It’s their site and they can do what they want" are entirely missing the point – the poll is if it was right to do so, not if Amazon were allowed to do so.

  148. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    While I voice the opinion that while Amazon does have the right to run their site as they see if, it still didn’t make it right to drop the game.

    There was nothing wrong with the game at all. Ooo, so it’s rape, big deal. It’s hentai. If you get into the world of hentai, it’s something you better get used to real fast, along with a lot of other things. The whole thing is fictitious, with characters who don’t even exist outside of the game.

    And christ, what next? Maybe tentacles are offensive, too, cause it’s inhuman. Or maybe yuri because it’s homosexual. Or anything magic cause it might advocate witchcraft! Let’s ban all erotic images from Amazon! Save the children from them! Etc.

    Amazon caved in. That gives even more resolve to others who shouldn’t have it.

  149. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    "The only problem I have with this whole debate is the idea that any private organization can "censor" anything."

    Never heard of [TV] network censors, have you?

  150. 0
    Bennett Beeny says:

    "The only problem I have with this whole debate is the idea that any private organization can "censor" anything.  There is only one entity that can "censor" anything and that is the Government. "

    Rubbish!  Anyone who has control over the distribution of a thing can censor it.

  151. 0
    TJLK says:

    I don’t think anyone is saying Amazon shouldn’t be able to control their own company.  That being said I think the question is asking if you agree with their decision.  Would you have done the same thing?

  152. 0
    mykalgaidin says:

    The only problem I have with this whole debate is the idea that any private organization can "censor" anything.  There is only one entity that can "censor" anything and that is the Government.  Fortunately, we have the First Amendment to protect us from censorship.

    It boils down to this: Amazon’s site, Amazon’s call.

  153. 0
    mykalgaidin says:

    No, I wouldn’t have.  Amazon wasn’t selling the game themselves, it was being sold through a reseller.  Granted, it was on Amazon’s site, but I’m sure you can find a hundred things even more offensive to most if you dug around.


    Makes me wonder how somebody found this game to begin with.  Do they regularly go to Amazon and put "rape simulator" into the search engine?


    "It’s at times like this, when I’m trapped in a Vogon airlock with a man from Betelgeuse and about to asphyxiate in deep space, that I wish I’d listened to what my mother told me when I was young." "Why, what did she say?"

    "I don’t know, I didn’t listen."

  154. 0
    mykalgaidin says:

    There is a simple solution to your problem with anime and hentai.  Don’t look at it.  Ever. 

    I find that most people who claim to be outraged by something look at those same things for the very purpose of being outraged.  Gives you something to talk about over your Cheerios.

  155. 0
    TJLK says:

    Care to elaborate?  Why is Hentai and Anime "dumb"?

    Also, do you believe that everything you view as dumb should be prohibited?  How would you feel if someone prohibited something that you didn’t think was dumb, and their reason amounted to it being dumb?


  156. 0
    Touchdown Graves says:

    Hentai is dumb. Anime is dumb. I think amazon should expand their idea to ban all of both. Maybe then it could leak over into the rest of the world.

  157. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    I can’t really blame Amazon for trying to avoid a PR disaster, but I am well and truly fed up with the people who seek out these kinds of things just for the sake of stirring up controversy and trying to rid the world of anything that they do not personally approve of.  Lots of things offend me.  Take the Saw movies for instance.  The entire premise of them seems sick to me and I have no desire to see them whatsoever.  So, being the rational and capable adult that I am, I simply do not watch them.  I feel no particular need to go on some holy crusade to rid the earth of Saw, just because I don’t like it.  It’s fiction, nobody is actually being harmed, and nobody is forced to watch it.  Just like this game.

    According to the Jezebel crowd, any depiction of rape will turn men into rapists.  Then again, according to the Jezebel crowd, all men already are rapists, or would be if they thought they could get away with it.  This is the exact same kind of unsubstantiated crap argument that is made about violence in video games leading to real world violence.  And for that matter, why is rape so much worse than the murder and mutilation that already feature in so many games?

    Bottom line is, it’s just a game.  I know the alarmists are getting tired of that argument, and have started to preemptively dismiss it, but that’s really what it comes down to.  It’s a work of fiction, just like any other book, movie, tv show, comic, or whatever, that depicts rape.  "It’s just a game" doesn’t mean it can’t be taken seriously, as the alarmists try to imply to help dismiss the argument.  TV shows, movies and novels can all deal with sensitive subjects and be taken seriously.  "It’s just a game" means that the subject can be explored in a way that does not and cannot actually harm anyone.  Does this particular example have much artistic merit?  I’d say not, but that’s just my opinion.  I am quite comfortable with having my own opinion without needing to force it upon others, and I will always come down on the side of freedom of expression in such matters.  One person’s or group’s mores and taboos should not be used as justification to silence somebody with a different outlook.

  158. 0
    nighstalker160 says:

    I think it was right of them to drop this game. HOWEVER, they need to codify their offensive materials policy in a much more concrete way. Their policy is way to vague.

  159. 0
    Shoehorn Oplenty says:

    It all boils down to Amazon’s choice what products they wish to sell or alow sale of through 3rd parties. It is their right to do so.

    As to whether they are right? In this case, I believe they are. A company wishes to remain successful, and negative publicity will harm that success. There could have been incredible negative publicity involved with them making a game that portrays rape as fun available (or being seen to through 3rd parties), so it’s a pretty clear cut choice, and the correct one for them to make.

    Some might argue that it’s a slippery slope, but I don’t think so. There is a huge gulf of difference between this and a game like GTA.

  160. 0
    State says:

    It is up to Amazon whether they choose to sell the game or not, another question is should we force retailers to actually sell the game?

    If you believe in freedom of speech you must also believe in the company having the freedom to choose what items it decides to sell and not to sell.

Leave a Reply