LittleBigPlanet 2 Levels Show Hate For President

Sometimes it’s hard for people to separate their politics (or in this care their hate) from other aspects of their life. For example, a series of levels created for LittleBigPlanet 2, show an unhealthy dislike for the president of the United States.

The descriptions speak for themselves (from Destructoid):

obama kill read description
defeat obamas
hêârt if ù häte ôbámå ( seriously ) h4h
m odes to kill obama
stupid obama
KILL OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
arrest obama for life

Making a level with the word "kill" and "Obama" in the description is a great way to get a free ride in the party van. Given the recent violence in Arizona, it is also very inappropriate.

Source: Destructoid

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


  1. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    You mean like this, which even pertains specifically to threats against the president, and which draws a distinction between a true threat and the empty, idle kind of "threat" that a LBP level so clearly is?  I can only assume that the "blatantly obvious" that you are so sick of pointing out to me is how context doesn’t matter, but oh shit, turns out it actually does.  Sorry about that, better luck next time.

    And how screwed up is your worldview that you think I would threaten to kill you?  Is that how you generally react to internet arguments?  Are you just projecting onto me?  Or are you incapable of drawing the distinction in your mind between me supporting somebdy’s right to say something, and me supporting what they are saying?  I’m defending freedom of speech here, that doesn’t mean I agree with that speech.  I support the right of Nazis, homophobes, bigots, and other such trash to speak freely too.  Doesn’t mean I am one.  And even if I did threaten to kill you, that would only be crossing your fantasyland line, not the one in the real world.

    It seems like what’s happening here is, I’m saying "this is not a genuine threat and is therefore protected as free speech", and you, since you don’t believe in the distinction between a genuine and an idle threat, are hearing "it is ok to make threats as a part of political discourse".  If so, that’s your cognitive block to deal with, I’ve laid it out as clearly as I can.

  2. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    Oh grow up with the childish comments.

    Tell you what, I’m sick of pointing out the blatantly obvious to you over and over again, go read the law regarding threats to kill at some point and stop trying to make excuses for threat speech. It’s got to the point where you’ve decided to try and accuse me of this that and the other because my opinion is different, what’s next, are you going to threaten to kill me, or would that be over the line?

  3. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    I guess if you want to live in a fantasy land where context and credibility mean nothing, then that kind of makes sense.  But here in the real world, every time someone says the world "kill" does not necessarily constitute a legitimate threat.  Say someone has just had a prank pulled on them, and they say to the pranker "You are so dead!"  Is that a threat?  Does the speaker seem sincere, and does the "victim" have reasonable cause to think he is actually in harm’s way?  Obviously not.  But according to you, we should just lock the speaker up because he might have been serious and we just don’t know.

    "I don’t know" is a critical concept here, because we have to give people the benefit of the doubt, otherwise there is no free speech.  What you are suggesting would require people to never say anything that might be taken literally or out of context to mean support for a crime, because in your mind, merely speak about a crime is equivalent to committing, or at least seriously attempting to commit, the crime.  That’s absurd.

    The point you are missing is it does matter where it is said, why it is said, and how it is said.  Context is everything.  You can’t go revoking people’s freedom of speech just because you are too lazy to consider context and want to automatically assume the worst.

    So, you cannot accept reality.  Ok, I guess that explains a lot.  And please don’t trot out that fire in a crowded theater nonsense.  That is an incitement to panic, which can reasonably be expected to result in actual harm.  Nobody is going to go out and try to kill Obama just because some LBP level said so.

  4. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    For a start, I would rather assume that someone who shouts ‘Kill X’ is serious about the matter rather than just assume they are exercising their Freedom of Speech and end up dead, it’s usually the safest route to take. Politics in the West does not condone politically motivated calls to kill people, that direction leads to Facism, quite literally, power through physical domination, fear and threats.

    "I don’t know" doesn’t mean that I can simply ignore the sentiment behind the comment, and the argument that they haven’t done it yet makes no sense whatsoever, I haven’t killed anyone, doesn’t give me the right to walk around saying I want to kill people or that people should ‘die’ for doing nothing more than having a different political viewpoint to myself. Certainly, people like Fred Phelps won’t be missed, but I would never condone killing him.

    The point you are missing it that it doesn’t matter where it is said, why it is said or how it is said, it is still a statement about killing somebody else, if the reason that is wrong passes you by then fine, but that doesn’t change the fact that the moment we turn to the concept of killing, whether it be a ‘joke’ a ‘threat’ or a ‘promise’ is immaterial because, as you yourself said, we have no way of knowing, for which I refer you to my first paragraph.

    I cannot accept any situation in which calling for the death of someone based on their political views can be considered ‘Freedom of Speech’, and the day it does become such would be an extremely dark day not only for the US, but for the Western world in general. Sometimes there are assassinations, but I certainly hope that the US hasn’t degraded to the point where they ever consider calls to kill someone a viable form of Speech, regardless of the motive behind those calls. If it is a joke, then it’s shouting ‘Fire’ in a crowded theatre, if it’s serious then it’s ten times worse.

  5. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    Yes it does matter, if you are trying to say that the LBP levels constitute an actual directive to kill.  There is a huge distinction between someone in a position of power who can reasonably expect his words to be carried out, and someone just venting their anger with no expectation, or any reason to expect, those words to come to fruition.

    As for the nutcases, they’re nutcases.  You can’t hold the people nutcases are "inspired" by to be responsible for the nutcases’ actions, as you demonstrated for me quite well with your Beatles example.

    That’s a pretty narrow definition of politics you have there.  I look at politics throughout history and see countless examples of murder and other crimes.  Isn’t terrorism politically-motivated murder?  I’m not saying we should condone or encourage murdering people as a political tool, but to deny that it is such a tool is foolishly naive.  And of course, nobody in this situation is actually murdering anybody, so it’s a moot point anyway.

    How do I know?  I don’t, and neither do you, but let’s look at the facts and see if we can make an educated guess.  For one thing, they haven’t actually tried to kill the president.  That’s certainly an indicator that they are not serious.  They have expressed this statement, not in some forum of like-minded people, not to a group of people who might actually carry it out, not in a way that suggests any serious thought has gone into it, but just in a few crass words in a level on a game, whose purpose seems more to shock, offend, and get attention (mission accomplished!) than anything else.

  6. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    It doesn’t matter whether those people are in positions of power or not, nutcases look for reasons to be insane. A Taliban spokesman is not in a position of power over every Muslim in the world, and 99.99% of them would competely ignore his comments as stupid, but that .01% are crazy enough to go out an kill people, not because of their religion, but because they wanted an excuse to hate people and he’s just provided one.

    If someone like Charles Manson can try to use the Beatles as an excuse to murder, when they quite obviously had no such message on their albums, what impact do you think comments like "Kill Obama" popping up, wherever they may pop up, will have?

    If someone wants to make a level called "Vote Out Obama" or "Impeach Obama", that’s fine, it’s a political viewpoint and acceptable, but the moment someone starts into the realm of "Kill Obama" they move out of politics and into advocating murder of a person, it’s no longer about politics.

    After all, how do you know for certain that this person does not truly believe this to be an acceptable way to behave? If Jared Loughner had not shot several people, he’d just be another nutcase obsessed with Grammar and with a Tin Foil Hat complex.

  7. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    In your examples, the words come from people in positions of power and authority whose words are generally taken to be orders.  That’s a far cry from some random LBP level, which nobody could reasonably be expected to interpret as a serious order which they should carry out.  It is obviously just some dumbass venting his anger.

  8. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    It’s still attempting to justify the mentality that killing someone is a justifiable option.

    If I turned around to someone and said ‘Kill X’, and that person was mentally unbalanced and did it, would I be innocent of my part in encouraging them?

    Trying to say that calls for murder are a justifiable form of self-expression has more in common with the more Fundamental areas of the world than a Democracy founded on the rights of the individual. The first freedom, the single most important one, is the freedom to take responsiblity for your speech, if people cannot use that Right responsibly then it endangers everyone around them.

    There’s an old story in English history of an Archbishop called Thomas Beckett, who was a man of peace, but did not always agree with the King. One day, in a fit of anger the King shouted ‘Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?’ and was overheard by some knights. Because of that one moment of anger, Thomas Beckett ended up having his head split open by a sword as he prayed in Canterbury Cathedral. It’s a lesson from history, and one more people could benefit from learning.


    Edit: After all, would you consider a Fundamentalist Taliban leader broadcasting a message asking all Muslims in the World to ‘kill the western infidels’ as merely him exercising his Right to Free Speech?

  9. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    Easy there, guy.  There is a huge difference between killing somebody and merely saying "kill somebody".  Nobody is saying that murder is free speech, so leave that strawman alone.

  10. 0
    Thad says:

    Don’t know where to begin on everything that’s wrong with your post — guess I’ll start at the beginning.

    "video games being a form of speech"

    The First Amendment applies to video games, yes.

    It does not, however, require Sony to allow all forms of user-generated content, unrestricted, on its privately-owned network.  Use of the network is subject to Sony’s terms of service.

    ""kill obama" is speech"

    Specifically, it’s threat speech, which is not protected by the First Amendment.

    "and you can’t just assume the context of that speech"

    I think it’s reasonable to assume the context of someone saying "kill Obama" that person is suggesting Obama should be killed.

    "Could be just a small joke amongst friends."

    A small joke amongst friends about killing Obama.

  11. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    Yes, the point of this site is to promote free speech. Yet, we also support respect, tact and the high ground on top of it.

    I really don’t care if someone wants to make a game that portrays their distaste of someone else, but when it comes to basing a game around the context of killing that someone, it gains my disaproval. I won’t ever call for a ban of such speech, but it is not above criticism.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

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

  12. 0
    Mechadon says:

    Making a level with the word "kill" and "Obama" in the description is a great way to get a free ride in the party van. Given the recent violence in Arizona, it is also very inappropriate.

    Really? I thought the whole stance of this website was on freedom of Speech (video games being a form of speech) no matter what politcal atmosphere is present. "kill obama" is speech, and you can’t just assume the context of that speech. Could be just a small joke amongst friends.

  13. 0
    Thad says:

    "because its only free speech as long as you agree with the government…"

    No, it’s only free speech as long as you’re not threatening bodily harm to somebody.

    Threat speech is not constitutionally protected.  There is a well-established body of case law on the subject.

    Do you really not understand the difference between disagreeing with someone and threatening to kill them?

  14. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    So you condone the idea of murdering people because you don’t agree with them?

    The damage that such an act would have on Freedom in the US is imeasurable if such a thing happened. Killing the President wouldn’t solve anything, it’d just serve to provide another round of curtailment and control from both sides of the house trying to protect themselves, and it’s everyone else who would suffer for it. Right now, the Government needs to be more accessible to the people not less, threatening their lives would achieve precisely the opposite effect.

  15. 0
    tallimar says:

    "Making a level with the word "kill" and "Obama" in the description is a great way to get a free ride in the party van."

    because its only free speech as long as you agree with the government…

  16. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    I think this would have been inappropriate regardless of whether the shooting in Arizona had occurred or not.  That being said, this can hardly be equated with actually killing somebody, or with giving an actual order to carry out the act, as others in the comments have said or implied.  Free speech isn’t revoked just because the speaker is an obnoxious, immature twit with no tact, decency or shame.

  17. 0
    Thomas P. says:

    The US Secret Service takes this stuff pretty seriously.  Pretty sure the Secret Service has already subpoenaed Sony for info on the people who posted the level.

  18. 0
    Monte says:

     Not much of a surprise to me, and i’m not even  sure it would be considered unusual. Bush got a lot of hate and shit back in his day aswell. First you always get the haters you are just on the opposite spectrum and then you add that on top of the poor job the president has been doing. The next president will probably also receive a lot of hate. As distasteful as it is, that’s just how politics are in the internet age

Leave a Reply