Gamer Offers Counterpoint to Girl against RapeLay

In response to last week’s story by Charleston, South Carolina’s News 2 on a 14-year old girl who started petitions against the game RapeLay, a local gamer called the station and offered a point of view on the dangers of banning any games.

While he empathized with the plight of Elena Lyons, thirty-two year old Dondi Wiggins took issue with the banning of any game, saying that gamers, “…should have the right to decide for ourselves” what to play.

Wiggins, President of a local gaming group called Lowcountry Anime and Gaming (a group that is a chapter of the Entertainment Consumer Association [ECA]), said that he personally would not play Rapelay.

Wiggins added, “I don’t think video games should be banned.  I think we as gamers should decide what we want to play as an adult.  We have free speech.”

Just a note… the Wiggins segment is flakey early on in the video, but is served up later in the broadcast problem-free.

Disclosure: Gamepolitics is a publication of the ECA.


Thanks LegendaryGamer00!

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

60 comments

  1. 0
    PHOENIXZERO says:

    Hmm both this follow up and the original story were pulled from the site, maybe it’s standard practice to remove stories after so many days or someone saw the comments that made the station look like total idiots and deleted them. >_>

  2. 0
    Erik says:

    Maybe instead of just assuming that everyone else is in complete denial and you are the only sane one you should do an introspective search for your problems.  Because honestly, this "rape culture" thing seems to be coming from you and you only.  And the only thing that you’ve given to prove this point is "these comments" not victim wanking.

    Sorry, but getting raped does not give you a "get out of proving your point" free card.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  3. 0
    Notebook says:

    Who said anything about "thinking for the children?" Believe it or not, I hate that phrase as much as you do since all in all, since in the end, no one is really thinking about the children–just their own agendas.

    And you are right that the game itself is made in Japan, but as evident in the majority of these comments, rape culture is clearly blantant in American society and you’d have to be in complete denial not to notice it. There’s no "victim culture" as you’re putting it.

    In the end, I’m not sure why I’m even bothering to talk about this. In a way, I did get off topic.

  4. 0
    Erik says:

    Oh?  You had a point?  I’m sorry I missed it through the useless rambling.  So you may want to explain just what a domestic Japanese game has to do with our supposed rape culture.  Do I think that someone put her up to this?  With the limited information that has been given my answer is: I don’t know.  I’m not going to break out the pitchforks and torches without evidence.  But it works both ways.  I’m also not going to leap to her aid (as you seem to) without the very same evidence.

    It just goes to show how prevalent out "victim culture" is.  Whereby we sacrifice any intelligence and logic in order to mollycoddle the victim.  Sort of like: "Will someone think of the children?" is a catch-all argument to justify ending where the person using it tries to chastise a person who is thinking when they "should" be doing apparently. 

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  5. 0
    Erik says:

    Our society?  Unless I’m mistaken this is a Japanese product which was never actually meant for sale outside of Japan.  And the only way one can generally get this product is by import.

    But no.  There is a VICTIM.  We must eschew all common sense and logic to pander to teh VICTIM.  Even if it means having to go out of our way to strike out at things that had NOTHING to do with her victimization.  If the VICTIM wants you to beat up some homeless guy you better do so, or you are BLAMING TEH VICTIM!

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  6. 0
    Notebook says:

    Using my own sarcasm against me, nice.

    My point was do you honestly think that the girl planned this entire incident just so she can get some attention? Are you people that fucking deluded? There’s a very, very low chance that this girl is Light Yagami in terms of planning.

    Oh, and how convienent that the parents shouldn’t be blamed for the girl’s action in this case, but yet if this girl was to create the next Columbine you all wouldn’t hestitate to point the finger at her parents for not being hard enough to keep violent games away from her. Double standards–it’s how this world works I guess.

    But whatever. Call her whatever you want. I’m sure this will be a rude wake up call of how prevalent rape culture is in our lovely society.

  7. 0
    Father Time says:

    We shouldn’t blame the parents for her being as you put it an attention whore. She’s the one who wants the game banned so she should face the criticism for it, and you shouldn’t try to use her rape to shield her from criticism.

    —————————————————-

    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.

  8. 0
    Notebook says:

    Do you actually read the inane shit that you post? Nothing you’ve said in your post gives any kind of speculation on whether or not the girl "faked" it. I mean seriously…

    I tend to believe that too, because it would be more likely that she must have heard of the game from CNN, and then phoned the news company from NBC that is different and they could not make a story from her words unless if they had something that could be considered as news…so that is where the false information about her being raped when she was 8 or 9 would have came in.

    What the hell are you trying to say here? I seriously cannot understand the flow of this paragraph… you’re basically saying that the girl heard about Rapelay from CNN, then called NBC about it, and then they decide to make up information, and thus she was clearly faking the entire thing!? Just… what the fuck? That makes no fucking sense at all! I just… argh!

    Plus they said it was a non-family member who did this to her, but they didn’t go into anymore information as if this person was either on the run or they didn’t exist.

    What the fuck does this have to do with anything? I could give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you might be talking about the myth of stranger danger, but it’s obvious you’re too stupid to even think of that. So what if the rapist wasn’t a non-family member? It could’ve been a teacher, a doctor, a babysitter–any other kind of authority that she could’ve trusted. And why should they go into any more information about the perp?

    I would really question the behaviour of the 14 year old girl when there is a clear agenda she has got and even the agenda of the news station.

    oh boy victim blaming

    YES LET’S BLAME THE 14 YEAR OLD FOR BEING AN ATTENTION WHORE AND NOT THE PARENTS OF SAID 14 YEAR OLD WHO WOULD HAVE LIKELY APPROVED OF HER BEING INTERVIEWED IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THERE’S NO POSSIBLE WAY THAT THEY COULD HAVE CONVINCED HER TO GO THROUGH WITH THIS WHETHER SHE ACTUALLY WANTED TO OR NOT TO BEGIN WITH BUT NO LET’S JUST SAY THE GIRL HAS A FUCKING AGENDA TO DESTROY EVERY VIDEO GAME OUT THERE! ARGH GARGH BALRGAHFJKGAKLF

    Jesus Christ, y’know what? I really think video games should be banned. Just… get rid of them all. Fuck.

  9. 0
    TBoneTony says:

    I would like to say that I am only just one man with an opinion, I also know that no matter what opinion I have it does not make my sentance right or wrong, and everything what I say can be taken from just experience and a little bit of thought. Sometimes when heavy with emotion, I can say the wrong things sometimes, but then I also do suspect with anyone who says that they have been raped but still try to use that experience to justify the hurt on others such as with banning a game that never had anything to do with their real horrible experience, yeah, I am often quite suspicious….

    But it never makes my comment right or wrong though.

  10. 0
    State says:

    I think you fail to see how the rating systems work.

    Manhunt 2 is set in many realistic locations against humans, whilst GOW is against an alien enemy. Mahunt 2 is a PS2 game, GOW is a 360 game, a generation apart. One game is realistic, the other is not and it doesn’t matter about the graphics. Gore isn’t the key factor in the ratings, it’s the type of violence and the realism of the scenarios.

    There’s much in Manhunt 2 that can be copied (like stabbing someone in the face with a shard of glass), but I can’t easy replicate killing an alien with a massive gun that has a chainsaw on it.

  11. 0
    Neeneko says:

    Grand Theft Childhood (or was it Sex in Video Games,.. hrm..) touched on the ESRB and R*.  While it is speculation, the ESRB has a political stake in being taken seriously and seen visibly keeping known studios under control, so it is sometimes felt that they are harsher on studios and series that are already in the political crosshairs.

    From the ESRB’s perspective, keeping themselves on the right side of political shitstorms is more important for the industry then even handed ratings.  Everyone ‘knows’ R* produces gory games so they would be called out if they were not harsh on R*,… but less known (by non-gamers) studios they can be laxer on because no one talks about them. 

     

  12. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    Do you have sources for those accusations? That first paragraph is pure speculation. They don’t get any heavier scrutiny than any other developer.

    Did Manhunt 2 get an AO rating? yes. Is it the only one to get an AO rating for violence? no. Other games get AO ratings. The only difference is that Rockstar chose to make a big deal out of it. Most companies will just look at the decision and quietly make some changes.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma


    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  13. 0
    GrimCW says:

    they also got hammered by the ESRB for less detailed violence in their games, as well as get heavier scrutiny over their games because of a simple hacker broke into a code that was never meant to actually be after it was already a dead idea.

    as i said, Manhunt 2 isn’t nearly as gorey, nore depictive, of violence as a GoW game, let alone some of the finishing moves in Mortal Kombat, or the new AvP.

    so why must R* be the only ones to censor or recieve an AO rating?

     

     

  14. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    Basically, people are trying to do to the game industry what they did to the comic book industry, make them deathly afraid to try anything.

    If certain people ahd their way we’d be culterally dead.


  15. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    but look at the problems R* suffers now from the ESRB and media because of some flub in the past.

    What problems from the ESRB? Did Rockstar bring about some changes in the ESRB rating system? Yes. Are those changes targeted specifically at Rockstar? No. Those changes apply to all game developers and publishers.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma


    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  16. 0
    GrimCW says:

    someone would complaing, and it would make the news somewhere.

    Thing is thats not where it’d stop.

    much like the hot coffee thing, they’d carry it till somethign was changed, publishers/distributors would back down or demand changes be made.

    despite it being a minor blip on the radar, that one bit of news coverage in todays age would still span half the globe.

     

    i mean really, why was some redneck mom that hears "allah is the light" in babies toys being talked about over half the web?

    not much if anything came of it, but even the companies making those toys had to openly come out and make statements, as well as test/check their own resources to make sure they were in the right.

    all in all thats costing someone money, and it becomes less about free speech anymore and more about being careful of whats being said and done.

    basically its just making companies to paranoid to even try new things cause they’ll end up like Rockstar and become heavily monitored.

    i’ve the uncensored version of Manhunt 2, and compared to something like Gears of War, that game has nothing worth calling that gruesome in it, the GFX are just to low quality. but look at the problems R* suffers now from the ESRB and media because of some flub in the past.

  17. 0
    nightwng2000 says:

    Historical games sugar coat the issue of slavery.  BUT, one who knows real world history KNOWS that it was slaves who built the pyramids (Civilization anyone?), and did much of the various hard labor jobs of centuries past (Empire Earth anyone?  Or Rome, Total War?).  And though indentured servants weren’t strictly slaves, they were still taken in ways that were similar to slavery and many were treated like slaves (many historical games that involve European royalty ignore these facts too, among other nations that had similar designs).

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  18. 0
    Chris Kimberley says:

    Realistically such a game would probably get an AO from the ESRB if it was ever submitted to them.  Which is essentially a ban since no retailer would carry it.  But if someone wanted to make a game like that and distribute it via there own channels (ie online) that is for them and their customers to decide.

    ===============

    Chris Kimberley

  19. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    "what would happen if someone came out and made a slave trade game?"

    Depending on the game’s mechanics, possibly the same thing that would happen if somebody made a game about transporting jews to Nazi extermination camps. Not all games that feature a given subject are meant to express support for that subject. I’m not saying Rapelay is that kind of game, but banning a game because of its subject matter is entering dangerous territory.

  20. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    Considering Rapelay is not banned in the US and could never be banned, It won’t happen.

    Rapelay is just not commercially available in the US.

    As for the slave trading game, I don’t think it would be banned. I have played several games that feature slavery. Sure you may get some complaints but it would never reach the point of banning.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma


    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  21. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    "i mean free speech or not what would happen if someone came out and made a slave trade game?"

    Ideally?  Nothing.  Those that want to play the game would, those that don’t wouldn’t.

    Realistically?  Assuming you mean the United States, probably nothing.  Someone might complain, it might make the news, but that’s about it.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  22. 0
    GrimCW says:

    agreed though some discretion should always be played when making such… games? i mean free speech or not what would happen if someone came out and made a slave trade game? no doubt it’d be banned for whatever reason, even if the slaves in game were white people ala the british during the days of the roman/greek empire. someone would be VERY fast to jump to the obvious when dealing with the term "slave trade" and there’d be more backlash against several unknown factors without even consulting information related to the product.

    i mean they have movies worse off than this half the time, even tv shows.

    maybe not as explicit, but either way still worse.

     

    to the point though.. how do you ban a banned game?

    no really, how do you ban something thats banned anyways? i really wanna know this :)

  23. 0
    LegendaryGamer00 says:

    2 Endings.

    Ending #1 is getting stabbed, Ending #2 is getting thrown in front of a subway train.

    And of course(As you said), absolutely NONE of this is, has been or ever will be mentioned by anyone reporting/saying something about/Spewing crap from their mouth.

    ——————–

    Making sure I retain my INSANITY

  24. 0
    TBoneTony says:

    9. Has anyone ever mentioned that the rapist gets killed at the end of the game?

    10. Regardless of the ending of the game, I would feel that the game itself handled allot of things quite messy, from the gameplay, to the lack of an interesting story or that the story seemed to be rushed and is perhaps a really bad game to play, but then again, I don’t think it should be banned, just a game to only be played on the internet and nothing else….

  25. 0
    nightwng2000 says:

    Yes, I’ve heard of the rewriting of history along those lines.  But it’s nothing more than an effort to imply that the abuses that the workers faced were actually desired by them.  Many decendants of the "Masters" tend to rewrite history to eliminate the acts committed from historical record.  But while the decendants are innocent of the crimes committed, we must not ignore the atrocities that were ACTUALLY committed during that period in history.

    There is much historial record that would have to be rewritten to completely eliminate the evidence of slavery during those periods.

    Even ignoring the religious aspects of Moses, the historical figure and his efforts to free his people from slavery would have to be eliminated altogether.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  26. 0
    Yuuri says:

    Ummm… It’s been discovered recently that it wasn’t slaves that built the pyriamids, but free citizens. It was considered to of been an honor. The workers were well treated and paid for their services. I have a mild intrest in Ancient Egyptian archiology, so I tend to read/watch things about.

  27. 0
    TBoneTony says:

    And that is one thing I don’t understand about the bann, it is already banned and yet they want to take it further by banning it on the internet.

    But to my knowlage, you can’t bann something on the internet, it is like trying to force Al-Queda to take down their own website…

    Then again, perhaps all this rapelay controversy is so US politicians can try to come up with a bill that would censor the internet or something like Australia is currently faced with….

    and for me being an Aussie, is more the reason why I don’t want to live in Australia anymore.

  28. 0
    Father Time says:

    No longer on store shelves?

    She must be talknig about Japan because it was never on store shelves in the US. It was never officially translated into English.

    —————————————————-

    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.

  29. 0
    TBoneTony says:

    There are so many things wrong about the rapelay controversy, it is like the news media and the government can’t find any more games to blame, so they focus on this one instead.

    A little bit sad if you asked me…

    The only good thing is that now they are all trying to bash games that are already banned on the market, they won’t be going after the games from bigger companies then.

    So in any case, the news media and politicians are nothing but bullies, they pick on the little people who can’t even defend themselves all because they can’t get what they want from bigger opposition that have the freedom of speech on their side.

     

  30. 0
    TBoneTony says:

    I tend to believe that too, because it would be more likely that she must have heard of the game from CNN, and then phoned the news company from NBC that is different and they could not make a story from her words unless if they had something that could be considered as news…so that is where the false information about her being raped when she was 8 or 9 would have came in.

    Plus they said it was a non-family member who did this to her, but they didn’t go into anymore information as if this person was either on the run or they didn’t exist.

     

    I would really question the behaviour of the 14 year old girl when there is a clear agenda she has got and even the agenda of the news station.

    Also it is sad that the gamer that was meant to represent us kept on saying that is was a mature rated game even though it would have been clearly an AO rated game if it was ever submitted to the ESRB,

     

  31. 0
    TK n Happy Ness says:

    I doubt if this girl was even raped because as we all know, girls and women can lie about being raped knowing nothing will happen to them since people always believe whatever they say and never believe anything a guy says.

  32. 0
    TBoneTony says:

    Here is my view…

    1. The game is never on store shelves…

    2. The game is porly made and not really fun or interesting to play.

    3. We should defend such games, because if we don’t then something we like might be banned too. Like the law is not a shickel, it is a sledge hammer and it does not know the difference between innocent and guilty because it is governed by the opinions of the people in power and does not care about the differences of people from a different culture.

    4. Even though I don’t like realistic rape in a game, I would be more offended by REAL rape by real people and fictional rape would never offend me at all because it never had any real people in it.

    5. Rape has been around for a long time, why are we so worked up about a computer game and not focusing our attention on the real life rape that has been around in society for a long time.

    6. We should focus on helping real people who have been raped to see things in allot more positive way and get their lives back on track, what happens to real rapists that is for the court to decide.

    7. We should allow games to delve into anything they want, because allot of bad things have happened in the world and the games that are made should be able to at least talk and delve into those sorts of things, however it would also come into a factor if anyone would want to play it, so therefore delving into a heavy subject might be to the detriment of a publisher unless if they were a small indie developer who does not care because they don’t have the big money to market the game.

     

    8. The Japanese indie gaming industry is allot like the western indie gaming industry as much as we have the indie movies and indie music industry, they are seperate from the commercial industries because they run a smaller business and their products are not commercial, why hasn’t anyone ever told these people on the news that this is only a small indie japanese game that was never commercialized at all, only in small hobby shops that specialise in adult material?

     

     

  33. 0
    Neeneko says:

     I wonder if that was edited to make the guy look bad, or if he was simply a really bad (and uninformed) spokesman.  Either way, if they wanted someone to demonstrate that gamers are poorly socialized dangers to sociaty, they found their patsy.

  34. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    I fail to see how I’m supposed to have contradicted myself. Keep in mind that 18 U.S.C. 1466A covers more than just pornography involving actual children, as it covers also fictional depictions of non-existent children engaged in sex. The Ferber decision is a rather unusual exception to the First Amendment and isn’t likely to apply to fictional depictions of fake children engaged in sex. Unless the Supreme Court eventually decides a special exception applies to virtual child pornography the same way one does to actual child pornography, it seems to me that virtual child pornography would not be deemed illegal unless it were also deemed obscene according to Miller. Because 18 U.S.C. 1466A attempts to restrict things to a greater degree than the Miller test permits, I say it would be deemed unconstitutional at least with respect to non-obscene virtual depictions of imaginary children engaged in sex.

  35. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    Now you have me confused here. First you say that that particular law is unconstitutional pointing out that even the portions addressing child pornography do not fit the language of the Miller test (1466A(a)(1)(A), (2)(A) and (b)(1)(a), (2)(A) but now you are saying that such is constitutional.

    You are also saying that such a bill is not constitutional because it does not include the language of the miller test in the (B) portions of those same sections.

    Wouldn’t the fact that the label obscene and lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value are not defined explicitly be enough to pass constitutional muster as they would have to be defined in a court of law when a charge is made?

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma


    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  36. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    "Wouldn’t it be prudent to codify what has already been determined obscene?"

    No, because the standards of what’s obscene may change with time and might not be the same across all jurisdictions.

    "Take child pornography. According to your definition, it would be okay to make child porn until someone challenges you. But according to my definition, creating such is illegal because it has been codified prior to creation."

    The Miller test does not apply to child pornography involving real children. Says Wikipedia:

    "The court in Ferber found that child pornography, however, may be banned without first being deemed obscene under Miller for five reasons:

    1. The government has a very compelling interest in preventing the sexual exploitation of children.
    2. Distribution of visual depictions of children engaged in sexual activity is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children. The images serve as a permanent reminder of the abuse, and it is necessary for government to regulate the channels of distributing such images if it is to be able to eliminate the production of child pornography.
    3. Advertising and selling child pornography provides an economic motive for producing child pornography.
    4. Visual depictions of children engaged in sexual activity have negligible artistic value.
    5. Thus, holding that child pornography is outside the protection of the First Amendment is consistent with the Court’s prior decisions limiting the banning of materials deemed "obscene" as the Court had previously defined it. For this reason, child pornography need not be legally obscene before being outlawed."
  37. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    Okay, I will agree that such a law could be considered to be unconstitutional.

    But my understanding of the Miller test is that it is not a test on the content, but on the the laws that target the content. According to the Wiki :

    The Miller test is the United States Supreme Court’s test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene,

    Wouldn’t it be prudent to codify what has already been determined obscene? Take child pornography. According to your definition, it would be okay to make child porn until someone challenges you. But according to my definition, creating such is illegal because it has been codified prior to creation.

    The Supreme Court has held that such laws are constitutional as long as they meet that standard and fall under previously defined obscenity standards. If the target of a law does not fall under those previously defined standards or meet the requirements of the miller test, it is unconstitutional.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma


    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  38. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    "I didn’t say it was a restatement of those points.  I said it defined those two points. There is a difference."

    What you’re saying, then, is that the law attempts to define explicitly what the Miller test leaves specifically to community standards? And you think that’s a point in favor of its constitutionality rather than against it?

    "How are we to determine what is falls under the first point if we do not define what the community standard is for content that appeals to the prurient interest?"

    The courts decide what those standards are according to the time ("contemporary") and place ("community") of the offence. It is not for the text of the law to define what an average member of the community currently thinks appeals to the prurient interest.

    "How are we to determine what is patently offensive sexual conduct or excretory function if the state has not codified such in law?"

    That particular section of the Miller test does explicitly refer to "applicable state law", and in that respect the law does inform the question of the Miller test’s applicability. Notice, however, that the Miller test doesn’t leave it up to the law to decide what is "patently offensive", but only to determine what forms of "sexual conduct or excretory functions" are covered.

    "What you are suggesting is that such standards should be defined post content creation."

    The standards are defined according to the local community and are those that exist at the time the content is published.

    "That the content must first be created and then the community decide if it is acceptable."

    Barring publication of content that hasn’t even been created yet would, under most circumstances, constitute prior restraint and would therefore be unconstitutional. With very few exceptions, the courts require that something be published before it can be supressed.

  39. 0
    Neeneko says:

     Ahm, that IS how the miller test works, it is how it is always worked.  It was never designed to actually give guidance or instruction content providers on what they can and can no to.  Like JD laws, it was designed to give a catch all tool to courts when they want to punish content but have no normal legal reason to do so.

    Putting definitions on the miller test completely defeats it’s spirt and purpose.

  40. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    I didn’t say it was a restatement of those points.  I said it defined those two points. There is a difference.

    How are we to determine what is falls under the first point if we do not define what the community standard is for content that appeals to the prurient interest? How are we to determine what is patently offensive sexual conduct or excretory function if the state has not codified such in law?

    What you are suggesting is that such standards should be defined post content creation. That the content must first be created and then the community decide if it is acceptable.

    Those laws were created in response to the miller test to define those points.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma


    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  41. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    Here is the Miller test in its entirety:

    -Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
    – Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
    – Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

    You say the law isn’t unconstitutional because it’s just a restatement of the Miller test, but I don’t think that‘s true. Here’s the relevant section of the law:

    (a)(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and

    (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

    Notice how section (a)(2)(B) of the law differs from the Miller test in that it’s missing the words "the work, taken as a whole", so that already the law is more restrictive than the Miller test.

    Notice also how section (a)(2)(A) is missing the concepts of "the average person" and "contemporary community standards", how the words "taken as a whole" are again missing, and how it refers to things like "sadistic or masochistic abuse" and "sexual intercourse" that may or may not be said to appeal to the "prurient interest". Again, the law is more restrictive than the Miller test.

    Compare that to (a)(1)(A), which would render the whole of (a)(2) superfluous if it weren’t intended to be more restrictive than the Miller test:

    (a)(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

    (B) is obscene

  42. 0
    Neeneko says:

     The constituionality is difficult to predict.  While the law tries to draw on the miller test and claims to simply give definitions for it, that does not mean that it will hold up.

    For instance, there was a law a while back that defined blashphomy as covered by the first point of the millar test, and it withstood several court challenges before finally being struck down (though if I recall correctly, the SC originally okayed the law and a later court struck it down)

    This new extension of CP laws could go either way if it was actually taken up by the SC.  Though the fact it also covers written expression alone would probably be enough to get it struck down since traditionally books are understood to always be covered.

  43. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    It is not unconstitutional because it is really just a definition of points 1 and 2 of the Miller test:

    • Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
    • Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma


    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  44. 0
    PHOENIXZERO says:

    Link below for what for18 U.S.C. 1466A says, Rapelay easily falls under it. I can’t believe it’s still being talked about or that so called "journalist" couldn’t take ten seconds to even bother to mention this. Then again, they can’t be bothered to do any research on the matter and encourage this girl for not only illegally downloading it but play it along with their showing the stupid thing on their program.

     

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html

  45. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    Is Rapelay explicit enough to be considered obscene? I’ve never played it, but I’m guessing it’s more cartoonish than it is explict. Is that not the case?

  46. 0
    PHOENIXZERO says:

    Like I said in the comments for this follow up story, Rapelay IS effectively banned in the US due our current obsenitity laws specifically 18 U.S.C. 1466A, it’s illegal to own or distribute it, there’s zero reason to specifically go after it for banning, it’s redundant especially for a game that isn’t commercially available in the US. Not to mention as someone else mentioned later, it’s also been banned in Japan since last year.

     

  47. 0
    GrimCW says:

    never said banning, but heavy complaints that could lead to other things.

    question is how long will it take for someone to notice the slave trade option in some games? let alone that its interactive?

    pass that along to the right person and/or persons and all of a sudden hell breaks loose over nothing.

    GoW again, the mere fact that Cole uses "mid 90’s slang" automatically made him racist enough to recieve a LOT of coverage.. over what? some dated slang?

    sure nothing came of it, but it doesn’t take much to get people going.

     

    but i was in referance to a game built ABOUT slave trade and control, not a back drop hardly there side option.

Leave a Reply