Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Gaming' started by Rekkie7, Jan 23, 2008.
^I think it's a double post.
The mass effects of outing a fox
Ted, I would agree that there's no crime in free speech, regardless of what one says, as long as it isn't a licensed news company. If it was just the opinion of a competing gaming company, or angry mothers, it would be okay. But when you're a broadcasting company, I do believe that the context of the situation is extremely different and that speaking any falsehoods that could potentially damage the sales and reputation of another company is illegal.
The concept of free speech is great but where should the line be drawn? Should anyone be allowed to put forth patently false information as the truth?
There is, however, a difference between free speech and slander, and this is more of a case of slander.
There is def something wrong with making up facts that negitively reflect someone elses property as trying to pass it off as news, in order to increase your own ratings.
I think EA would have a case. At the very least it would bring the truth to the spotlight, and thats what we want.
Here we got a law call injurier law, if someone makes a lying statement that is harmfull for someones image or business. Then they can be sued.
You know, it's a little depressing to see that things actually have come to this. The idea that we forcibly try to shape children into...A specific mold and criticize each way of raising them based off statistics. It's existed forever but the idea of "controlling" everyone has always disgusted me.
I really wish there wasn't such a bias either and that both sides were willing to listen to another and even with my personal preference towards the artistic side of games...After watching that clip, it seemed unfair for "reporters" to place judgment on something they haven't experienced themselves, a representative for thoughts that aren't their own so to speak.
It's a little odd because the circumstance or mentality rather can be applied in so many ways; control and all of it's forms. I mean, if painting became the new medium to replace video games would we suddenly have to worry about others restricting what it is we paint or express through these paintings? I can understand the whole "it's interactive so it's different," but really in most cases...Things like sex, all the like aren't really interactive and if it is, it has the proper rating.
In the end, I really just wish we spoke more for ourselves and not others. Sometimes we need to experience the harmful in order to convey it properly, a scar is not a scar truthfully unless you too have bared it. I just hope the gaming community stands up intelligently and that EA does take action upon this so that the industry is at least taken a bit more seriously from an artistic and creative point of view.
With every group the bad can easily outshine the good and that's no different for the "gaming" group, you know? If you go on forums going, "you guys are gay you have no idea," little will be done. I just hope the intelligent posters and such really convey thoughts without a sense of hostility and things get resolved, not just for Mass Effect and EA but for the future of gaming as well. It's just a shame that these networks like Fox and television in general have so much influence and power, yet we rarely have room to criticize those openly and intelligently with all the other criticisms of the world.
I understand the Journalist stance, you can't exactly "research" everything fully especially if your doing television by deadlines that strict but I don't believe partial research cuts it and I'm pretty sure your taught that in Journalism as well considering I was, though this is broadcast, go figure.
Sorry for the long post...But the whole thing just made me think on the community of gaming retrospectively. I hope you all feel the connection I do not just with games but with us as a community, as people who see more than frags and sex, though anyone admits that can be pretty sweet. There is just such a world out there that some will never see until we really express it to them..
And where do companies get this right to sales and reputation? How is the proper amount of sales and good thinking of a company determined had ill will not been directed toward it by a lying news station? It is impossible to determine.
The drawable line is easy to determine: where an individual's property rights end.
There is no difference: Slander is a form of speech Ã¢â‚¬â€
Traditionally, the line between slander and free speech in American law rests on something called "actual malice." According to New York Times V. Sullivan (1964), the first amendment protects one's right to publish even false and critical information, so lon as the publishing is not done with the knowledge that it is a lie or with, as Wikipedia puts it, "a reckless disregard for the truth."
There is no difference: Slander is a form of speech Ã¢â‚¬â€
Why should erroneous reporting be a crime? To say, "because it is a crime" is begging the question.
What obligates a news outlet to tell the truth? It is an assumed rule of journalistic integrity to be as objective as possible, yes, but it is not a mandate. No one can mandate it, for to mandate what someone can and cannot say would be an infringement of property Ã¢â‚¬â€
Libel and slander laws exist for the same reason as laws against assault: they protect people. Were it legal to just punch people in the face until you got your way, then society would be run by the musclebound and served by the meek and the bruised, but the law puts us on more of an even keel. Likewise, without libel laws, society can be run by whomever can shout the loudest. Corporations with big advertising budgets can convince everyone that the little guys are dangerous, news organizations with large followings can tell their viewers what not to buy, et cetera. They both protect the little guy from the big guy, which I can't see a problem with. It infringes on the "property of your body" only when you'd be infringing on another's: your right to throw punches ends at my face, your right to think untrue things ends when you defame me publicly.
Furthermore, assuming that news organizations are telling the truth, or are at least spitting distance from the truth, is necessary. People have jobs; they don't have time to research every thing they come across. Obviously it's not a perfect system, but I think what we're demonstrating here is that it's a self-monitoring system: when news organizations break that assumed vow of honesty, a whole bunch of people make a whole bunch of noise, and eventually they're going to have to deal with it.
By the way, if there were no assumption that the news is telling the truth, then there would be no reason to assume that the evidence they show would be accurate. The assumption that we are being told the truth is necessary for one to believe anything that didn't actually occur to oneself. No matter how diligent a reporter you are, sooner or later you're going to have to trust someone's word about what's going on in Washington, because you can't just hang in the back of every Senate session, taking notes.
It is different, because Pepsi isn't lying, they're simply excelling. And when Pepsi says their soda is better, they're saying something subjective: not a fact, an opinion, which cannot by its very nature be true or false, and thus cannot be libel.
But, let's make it the same. Imagine Pepsi's next big ad campaign IS a blatantly untrue fact to defame Coke's reputation. "Pepsi: Because Coca-Cola is on the verge of economic ruin!" is their next slogan. What's wrong with that? All's fair in love and soda wars?
No. Coke's been presenting itself as financially flush, so people are going to want to know what's happening. The IRS, the stakeholders, the Executive Officers, and the accountants are all going to get to a big room, hashing out the truth, costing the company hundreds of valuable man-hours. And Coke is publicly traded company! If stockholders think the company's about to fail, they'll sell, sell, sell, and Coke's going to lose a lot of money. Even if it's only the most panicky of holders that sell, it'll cause the stock to dip, and that will make the less panicky sell. Coke loses a significant amount of money, their advertising budget is slashed, and a reduced number of people get to see their new ad campaign: "Coke: We're actually financially secure, thank you". Reduced advertising, reduced consumption, reduced profit. All because of a lie that Pepsi knowingly told the world, with malicious intent. Coke is out millions of dollars here, you don't think they should sue?
There are many laws that override free speech, all of which are meant to protect people. You've got slander/libel cases like this, treason if you give information to terrorists/enemy countries.
There is no such thing as true freedom, as that would require no laws at all...but as soon as you took all the laws away and gave yourself true freedom you would be able to do things that would take other peoples freedoms away.
Fox is allowed to have an opinion on the game, they can provide true examples (there is sex in the game) but when they outright lie and state their is graphic nudity they are harming EA.
Pepsi and Coke are free say what they want...until they actually state something false as fact...for example if Pepsi said that Coke causes teen pregency then Coke would have something to take to caught.
And isn't this in a country where you can take someone to court for practically anything?
EDIT: Damn doublepost.
Fox just wants more ratings by having EA come on their show. I say EA should sue and show Fox that they can shove their illegal activities up their behinds.
Yeah that makes it a rough choice for EA. If they controversy on camera will mean more ratings for Fox. I think thats why they havn't anounced their decision yet.
Physical assault and verbal assault are not equal, despite the dubious use of assault for the latter. Physical assault, quite obviously, infringes on someone's property. If Joe punches Mary, Mary's property (her body) has been infringed upon; thus, Joe deserves proper punishment. If Joe calls Mary a nymphomaniac, what property of Mary's has Joe transgressed upon? The claim is Mary's reputation Ã¢â‚¬â€