×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Switzerland Passes Violent Games Ban

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the they're-just-mad-they-suck-at-olympic-hockey dept.

Censorship 294

BanjoTed writes with a followup to news from February that the Swiss government was pursuing a ban on violent video games. He writes "Sadly, Switzerland has now passed the law that paves the way for an outright ban on violent video games in the country. The full implications of the ruling will not be known until the government reveals the exact requirements that will be laid down by the new legislation – a decision that has not yet been made. What is certain though is that the Swiss authorities have now obtained the power to introduce any measures they see fit. The likeliest outcome seems to be an outright ban on the production, distribution and sale of any games deemed to be unsuitable – most likely anything with either a PEGI 16+ or PEGI 18+ certificate."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

294 comments

Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558404)

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.
You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.

CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER
Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat

HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.

FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.
Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.

MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.
Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most prominent anatomical feature, after all, its oversized buttocks, which have evolved to make it more comfortable for your nigger to sit around all day doing nothing for its entire life. Niggers are often good runners, too, to enable them to sprint quickly in the opposite direction if they see work heading their way. The solution to this is to *dupe* your nigger into working. After installation, encourage it towards the cotton field with blows of a wooden club, fence post, baseball bat, etc., and then tell it that all that cotton belongs to a white man, who won't be back until tomorrow. Your nigger will then frantically compete with the other field niggers to steal as much of that cotton as it can before the white man returns. At the end of the day, return your nigger to its cage and laugh at its stupidity, then repeat the same trick every day indefinitely. Your nigger comes equipped with the standard nigger IQ of 75 and a memory to match, so it will forget this trick overnight. Niggers can start work at around 5am. You should then return to bed and come back at around 10am. Your niggers can then work through until around 10pm or whenever the light fades.

ENTERTAINING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger enjoys play, like most animals, so you should play with it regularly. A happy smiling nigger works best. Games niggers enjoy include: 1) A good thrashing: every few days, take your nigger's pants down, hang it up by its heels, and have some of your other niggers thrash it with a club or whip. Your nigger will signal its intense enjoyment by shrieking and sobbing. 2) Lynch the nigger: niggers are cheap and there are millions more where yours came from. So every now and then, push the boat out a bit and lynch a nigger.

Lynchings are best done with a rope over the branch of a tree, and niggers just love to be lynched. It makes them feel special. Make your other niggers watch. They'll be so grateful, they'll work harder for a day or two (and then you can lynch another one). 3) Nigger dragging: Tie your nigger by one wrist to the tow bar on the back of suitable vehicle, then drive away at approximately 50mph. Your nigger's shrieks of enjoyment will be heard for miles. It will shriek until it falls apart. To prolong the fun for the nigger, do *NOT* drag him by his feet, as his head comes off too soon. This is painless for the nigger, but spoils the fun. Always wear a seatbelt and never exceed the speed limit. 4) Playing on the PNL: a variation on (2), except you can lynch your nigger out in the fields, thus saving work time. Niggers enjoy this game best if the PNL is operated by a man in a tall white hood. 5) Hunt the nigger: a variation of Hunt the Slipper, but played outdoors, with Dobermans. WARNING: do not let your Dobermans bite a nigger, as they are highly toxic.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD NIGGERS.
Niggers die on average at around 40, which some might say is 40 years too late, but there you go. Most people prefer their niggers dead, in fact. When yours dies, report the license number of the car that did the drive-by shooting of your nigger. The police will collect the nigger and dispose of it for you.

COMMON PROBLEMS WITH NIGGERS - MY NIGGER IS VERY AGGRESIVE
Have it put down, for god's sake. Who needs an uppity nigger? What are we, short of niggers or something?

MY NIGGER KEEPS RAPING WHITE WOMEN
They all do this. Shorten your nigger's chain so it can't reach any white women, and arm heavily any white women who might go near it.

WILL MY NIGGER ATTACK ME?
Not unless it outnumbers you 20 to 1, and even then, it's not likely. If niggers successfully overthrew their owners, they'd have to sort out their own food. This is probably why nigger uprisings were nonexistent (until some fool gave them rights).

MY NIGGER BITCHES ABOUT ITS "RIGHTS" AND "RACISM".
Yeah, well, it would. Tell it to shut the fuck up.

MY NIGGER'S HIDE IS A FUNNY COLOR. - WHAT IS THE CORRECT SHADE FOR A NIGGER?
A nigger's skin is actually more or less transparent. That brown color you can see is the shit your nigger is full of. This is why some models of nigger are sold as "The Shitskin".

MY NIGGER ACTS LIKE A NIGGER, BUT IS WHITE.
What you have there is a "wigger". Rough crowd. WOW!

IS THAT LIKE AN ALBINO? ARE THEY RARE?
They're as common as dog shit and about as valuable. In fact, one of them was President between 1992 and 2000. Put your wigger in a cage with a few hundred genuine niggers and you'll soon find it stops acting like a nigger. However, leave it in the cage and let the niggers dispose of it. The best thing for any wigger is a dose of TNB.

MY NIGGER SMELLS REALLY BAD
And you were expecting what?

SHOULD I STORE MY DEAD NIGGER?
When you came in here, did you see a sign that said "Dead nigger storage"? .That's because there ain't no goddamn sign.

How about banning the parent post? (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | about 4 years ago | (#31558498)

Perhaps the Swiss could teach Slashdot programmers (if there are any) how to delete all posts with the "n" word in it.

Re:How about banning the parent post? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558588)

That censorship would be significantly more odious than the easily ignored slashdot trolls.

Re:How about banning the parent post? (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | about 4 years ago | (#31559148)

In a practical sense Slashdot is guilty of censorship on a daily basis. It provides the ability to hide any post that moderators don't like.

Re:How about banning the parent post? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 4 years ago | (#31558652)

Nigerians [wikipedia.org] may disapprove, so would citizens of Niger [wikipedia.org], of-course only when someone misspelled their country names. On the other hand (just a guess) some people, who use this in their own conversations to address one another also may find this kind of 'funny'.

You should really listen to George Carlin's 7 dirty words. It is not the words that are 'evil', it is the context of the word usage.

Re:How about banning the parent post? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558738)

n1993r
nigg0r
ni66ar
|\| 1 (I (I € |\

And the headlines again: good luck with that, nigger.

Re:How about banning the parent post? (2, Funny)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | about 4 years ago | (#31558860)

That would be a niggardly response, don't you think? Why should posts that offend some be deleted? Selfish in the extreme IMO.

Re:How about banning the parent post? (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 4 years ago | (#31558932)

That would be a niggardly response, don't you think? Why should posts that offend some be deleted? Selfish in the extreme IMO.

Well done; you nailed it. It masquerades as a noble cause that, coincidentally enough, is difficult to oppose just like the "for the children" or "to stop terrorists" excuses. Really it's an incredibly selfish desire to "cleanse" the world of everything the person finds distasteful. With good old ends-justify-the-means consequentialism, this type of selfishness will make people advocate censorship and other cures that are worse than the disease.

It's like that saying: most people have two reasons why they do anything -- a good reason, and the real reason. I call it a corrupting influence because the person is usually not aware that the real reason exists, which makes their agenda little more than software they are mindlessly executing.

Re:How about banning the parent post? (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | about 4 years ago | (#31558936)

There are plenty of other ethnic slurs [wikipedia.org] that are equally as offensive--e.g., spic, dago, chink--but no one gives a flying horseshit about those for some reason.

Re:How about banning the parent post? (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | about 4 years ago | (#31559078)

Perhaps because nobody used those words here until today.

Re:How about banning the parent post? (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | about 4 years ago | (#31559134)

I'm not talking about just here on Slashdot, I'm talking about in general, at least in the States.

Re:How about banning the parent post? (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | about 4 years ago | (#31559208)

I don't hear those words much in the US either.

To be honest I don't hear the "n" word much either. It's probably because in the real world insulting people in any way can be dangerous.

Re:How about banning the parent post? (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | about 4 years ago | (#31559220)

Now I see where the misunderstanding was. I didn't meant to imply that people use those words often; I was simply remarking at the reaction to "nigger" in comparison to "spic" or "chink."

Australians.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558416)

Did a certain

Re:Australians.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558676)

They're all fucking idiots.

This is how I imagine... (5, Funny)

gad_zuki! (70830) | about 4 years ago | (#31558424)

gaming on Futurama's Neutral Planet would be.

"Banned for not being Neutral enough."

"I hate these filthy neutrals, Kif! With enemies, you know where they stand, but with neutrals - who knows. It sickens me."

Re:This is how I imagine... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558646)

What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

But how does this reflect poorly on America? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558446)

There must be a good reason for this since it was done in a socialist paradise. The real question is: how does this show that Americans are culturally backwards compared to their European counterparts?

What a confusing Slashdot story.

Re:But how does this reflect poorly on America? (5, Insightful)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | about 4 years ago | (#31558492)

You are aware that Switzerland is *more* capitalistic than the rest of Western Europe right? Due to the lack of a common ethnic or linguistic background, they adopted a form of government quite similar to that of the U.S.; federalist in nature, with significant autonomy for the cantons. Their health care is provided by private organizations, and while the base level health care is required to be offered on a non-profit basis, anything above the base level is offered on a for-profit basis similar to our own. It's one of the few countries to allow assisted suicide, which is a personal freedom even the U.S. denies. Troll all you want, but Switzerland is not the country to use as an object lesson.

Re:But how does this reflect poorly on America? (2, Informative)

linzeal (197905) | about 4 years ago | (#31558548)

We have assisted suicide laws in Oregon and Washington.

Re:But how does this reflect poorly on America? (2, Informative)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | about 4 years ago | (#31558584)

Those laws exist in a legal limbo (similar to the medical marijuana laws); they basically exist at the sufferance of the Department of Justice, and to my knowledge have not been well tested in court at the federal level.

Re:But how does this reflect poorly on America? (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about 4 years ago | (#31558918)

Uh, no.

There's another way of looking at things, called the US 10th Amendment. Viz:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Recently, SCOTUS (who otherwise can be pretty strange), has bent in this direction. So maybe OR and WA might survive this, and the Swiss's idea of assisted suicide and such will be seen as visionary. At some point, I intend to take advantage of such things personally.

Re:But how does this reflect poorly on America? (2, Insightful)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | about 4 years ago | (#31559216)

That's a naive, if understandable way of looking at things. By that logic, the federal government couldn't have laws against murder that were enforced outside of D.C. The Constitution is a mess of clauses that inevitably conflict in the real world, and common law makes the situation even more muddled. Practically speaking, the 10th is interpreted very narrowly; i.e. the federal government has a lot of powers not specifically delegated, but rather granted through centuries of legal decisions. That's why I'm saying it's in legal limbo; until federal courts specify which side of the line it falls on, we don't know whether the law applies, but that doesn't usually stop the feds from acting on their own personal interpretation.

Re:But how does this reflect poorly on America? (4, Informative)

Interoperable (1651953) | about 4 years ago | (#31558700)

In contrast to the freedom to commit assisted suicide, the country is not, in general, very socially permissive. It's a very right-wing country both economically and socially. Take, for instance, the ban on minarets [wikipedia.org] in Switzerland. That degree of censorship (and xenophobia) is much more restrictive than most other western countries.

Re:But how does this reflect poorly on America? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 years ago | (#31558772)

When I go to Switzerland, I expect it to look like Switzerland, with windmills and all that. If I wanted to look at Tehran, I'd go to Tehran.

Re:But how does this reflect poorly on America? (2, Informative)

geekboy642 (799087) | about 4 years ago | (#31558890)

The minarets were not banned out of a desire to make the country homogeneous for naive tourists.

Re:But how does this reflect poorly on America? (2, Interesting)

Baki (72515) | about 4 years ago | (#31559080)

So do I, I live in Switzerland by the way. I think the minarett law is a scandal and Switzerland makes itself rididulous with it.

How can you single out a single religion or even a single symbol of it? I don't think it will stand before the european court of human rights.

What they should have done, to protect the swiss landscape (which doesn't include windmills b.t.w., those are dutch) is to have a law that requires new buildings to blend in with the environment. In fact such regulations are already in place, making this idiotic law superfluous.

It would allow minarets in industrial areas for example, where noone should be disturbed by them.

Re:But how does this reflect poorly on America? (1)

Chrigi (1581379) | about 4 years ago | (#31559028)

Socially right winged? W T F! I think every country has it's controversial politic debates but that doesn't make it not very socially permissive and right winged. The Senate and House of Representatives would not pass such a bill (ban of violent games)?

Re:But how does this reflect poorly on America? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558836)

Switzerland may not be the country to use as an object lesson, but that doesn't mean that we can't be sick of them [youtube.com].

Re:But how does this reflect poorly on America? (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | about 4 years ago | (#31558872)

Which is why I'm somewhat disappointed. I've always thought the Swiss above all else as rational and logical.

Re:But how does this reflect poorly on America? (1)

BatGnat (1568391) | about 4 years ago | (#31559268)

Being rational and logical, is kind of like being moral.

Everyone can have a different opinion...

I am sure Hitler thought he was being rational and logical... and moral.

Re:But how does this reflect poorly on America? (1)

Miseph (979059) | about 4 years ago | (#31558502)

>>implying that anyone thinks everything in Europe is perfect

Just because somebody thinks some part of how a nation or culture operates is good, even better than how their own does it, doesn't mean they blanket agree with everything.

It's kind of like how Tea Partiers will claim to hate Bush, then praise every single thing he did and said... only in reverse.

Good effort, though.

Re:But how does this reflect poorly on America? (1)

gilgongo (57446) | about 4 years ago | (#31558888)

There must be a good reason for this since it was done in a socialist paradise.

On what possible measure could anyone, in their right mind or with a nanosecond's consideration of the facts, think that SWITZERLAND - of all places! - is a "socialist paradise"??

They've been the most capitalistic country on earth since about 1720! Most Swiss I've met are like Ayn Rand! Do they even have any government-run social institutions? They're not even a member [wikipedia.org] of the EU!

That's got to be the funniest post on /. I've seen all week.

Re:But how does this reflect poorly on America? (1)

digitig (1056110) | about 4 years ago | (#31558968)

It's democracy in action. Don't like democracy when the vote doesn't go the way you like, then?

Yay! A violence-free country! (4, Funny)

geekmux (1040042) | about 4 years ago | (#31558472)

Boy, it sure is a good thing they wrapped up all the violence into small packages with nifty little stickers on them! Whew, for a minute there, I was worried that I might actually see a "policeman" in that country, or find vulgar language on Youtube the next time I'm visiting there. Goodness me...

Re:Yay! A violence-free country! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558536)

Take the piss all you like, the fact is they have the highest gun ownership in Europe and the lowest gun crime.

Back on topic, follow the sponsors of this law, chances are they have an axe to grind and the Swiss voters will soon cost these people their jobs.

Re:Yay! A violence-free country! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558624)

Take the piss all you like, the fact is they have the highest gun ownership in Europe and the lowest gun crime.

Back on topic, follow the sponsors of this law, chances are they have an axe to grind and the Swiss voters will soon cost these people their jobs.

Let's hope so. I'm from the U.S. and there's plenty of this nonsense happening here: I mean, you'd almost think that our lawmakers have all our problems under complete control and have nothing more important to do with their time (and our money.)

What it comes to down to is expectations vs. reality ... what do these people (indeed, anyone who wants to "ban" something) want to see happen to society, and what is the probability of that actually occurring? And is that outcome worth the price (the law of unintended consequences is always a factor.) A good law is one that has a beneficial outcome with minimal costs to society and that doesn't violate any core laws or principles of that society. It's hard to see what a ban on violent gaming will actually do, noisy rhetoric and flawed "research" aside. As you say, the country already has more guns per capita than just about anyone else (excepting perhaps the U.S., but I don't know the numbers) and comparatively little violent crime. Personally, I just don't see the point.

Re:Yay! A violence-free country! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558742)

Take the piss all you like, the fact is they have the highest gun ownership in Europe and the lowest gun crime.

They also have compulsory gun ownership for all military age males, so that particular statistic is pretty biased.

Re:Yay! A violence-free country! (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 years ago | (#31558802)

Why does that make it biased?

Re:Yay! A violence-free country! (3, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about 4 years ago | (#31559222)

Because it's comparing apples (people who wanted a gun and so bought one) vs oranges (people who may or may not have wanted one but are legally required to have one anyway).

Re:Yay! A violence-free country! (1)

owlnation (858981) | about 4 years ago | (#31558766)

Take the piss all you like, the fact is they have the highest gun ownership in Europe and the lowest gun crime.

No. Just not true. Not entirely anyway. Yes, they do all have guns -- however domestic violence quite often ends up as fatal gunshot wounds. It may be true that they don't have much in the way of armed robbery compared to other European countries, but they sure do love to shoot their own families.

Not that this has anything to do with games.

What does "quite often" mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31559002)

Where are your stats?

Are domestic-violence fatalities higher there than in other European countries? Or is that still lower too?

Gotta do something about that Chavez! (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about 4 years ago | (#31559042)

Now that dictator Chavez wants to ban violent video games in Switzerland!? WTF? These leftist dictatorships need to be stopped! ;-)

Re:Yay! A violence-free country! (4, Informative)

jpyeck (1368075) | about 4 years ago | (#31558690)

Sarcasm noted, however...

Having lived 2 years in Switzerland, their security is assured very proactively. Every male 18 to 40ish is required to serve in their military. It's not unusual to see tanks rolling down the street midday, on the way to training. Soldiers are often seen on the trains in full uniform, with weapon, off to their weekend on-duty. At a colleague's home, his service rifle was propped up in the corner next to his Swatch collection. Police with automatic weapons are obvious on their patrols at the airport in Zurich.

The Swiss may be conservative, but afraid of violence, they are not.

Re:Yay! A violence-free country! (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 years ago | (#31558846)

All that evidence could also lead to the conclusion that they're not just afraid of it, but paranoid about it.

Re:Yay! A violence-free country! (1)

Herkum01 (592704) | about 4 years ago | (#31558804)

Don't forget, they will bundle the game with its very own secret bank account! SWEET! Less violence, more embezzling, everyone WINS!

Wonderful! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558486)

Good to know there's a country out there that can effectively protect its citizens from the real world.

What has gone wrong with the world? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558506)

Is it just me or is the entire world going into a period of reduced freedom and increased state control? Every developed nation appears to be banning violent games, porn and free speech in general and they're doing it for no logical reasons. Modern Warfare 2 sold 6.4million copies in the first week in the US and UK alone and yet there weren't 6.4million new mass murders on the streets. This is more than sufficient evidence to prove that violent games don't turn people into killers and yet are moronic, moralist rulers still press on with their attacks on our freedom.

The one thing that will turn me into a killer is if this continues because I'm growing to hate society more and more by the day. It's been shown many times throughout history that people will only take so much before heads start to roll.

Re:What has gone wrong with the world? (2, Insightful)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | about 4 years ago | (#31558532)

The one thing that will turn me into a killer is if this continues because I'm growing to hate society more and more by the day. It's been shown many times throughout history that people will only take so much before heads start to roll.

Yeah, but that was before the politicians came up with the "Think of the children" ploy. That one still seems to have quite a bit of juice left in it.

Re:What has gone wrong with the world? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 4 years ago | (#31558680)

Free speech has been under attack almost from the moment it was invented (ie. Alien and Sedition Laws). Politicians and bureaucrats despise freedom, they fear it. Somehow the cowards and the tyrants always reach the top.

Well, it ain't too flippin' hard for Swiss gamers to get the games in. As usual, these laws inconvenience only the average consumer.

Re:What has gone wrong with the world? (1)

ThePangolino (1756190) | about 4 years ago | (#31558702)

Never forget it is all politic correctness. If they took such a decision it is more likely that they think there will be a sufficient amount of people to support them in it. For most people, violence is just BAAaaad. The point is that the average and very neutral Joe doesn't necessarily think nor has the same principles as the average anonymous coward on Slashdot does.

Re:What has gone wrong with the world? (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 4 years ago | (#31558764)

Is it just me or is the entire world going into a period of reduced freedom and increased state control? Every developed nation appears to be banning violent games, porn and free speech in general and they're doing it for no logical reasons. Modern Warfare 2 sold 6.4million copies in the first week in the US and UK alone and yet there weren't 6.4million new mass murders on the streets. This is more than sufficient evidence to prove that violent games don't turn people into killers and yet are moronic, moralist rulers still press on with their attacks on our freedom.

I've been wondering for several years now how long this must go on before the average person realizes that it's a concerted effort. Two or three sovereign nations adopting similar restrictions in similar timeframes is a coincidence. Most of the Western world doing so within the same timespan of a few years indicates a common agenda. It has to be at least significant enough to overcome nationalistic pride, "not invented here", and other factors that would tend to make any given nation not want to follow the lead of all the others.

Only the public education system could produce such large numbers of people who fail to realize or fail to appreciate that a frighteningly small number of people strongly influence, control, and own the major governments and multinational corporations of the world. Historically, small aristocratic elites have never cared about what was in the interests of the average person. Why does anyone suppose they would start caring about that now with video games and the freedom to play the ones of your choice?

What has already happened among the various states of the US is now happening with nations. US states once had significant differences in terms of social norms and state laws. If one state's restrictions really bothered you, you could move to another state that had different laws. Now they all have the same drinking age, the same smoking age, similar speed limits, the same list of prohibited substances, etc. The same thing is happening to nations.

The tendency now is to gradually erode the diversity that exists among nations and turn them into uniform carbon copies of each other so you cannot "vote with your feet" for greater freedoms. This is necessary for two reasons. One, a highly visible counterexample might cause people to decide they won't accept arbitrary restrictions ("country X didn't ban Y, and they haven't had problems with it, so why do we ban Y?"). Two, a few nations that remain free countries would have significant economic (and other) advantages when competing with the ones that jump on the state-control bandwagon. This is in fact one reason why the USA became a superpower in the first place.

Both of those points would serve to undermine the notion that central management of daily life is a necessary function of modern states. That's why so many nations are doing this at once. It's quite obvious to me that it's more than coincidence.

Re:What has gone wrong with the world? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 years ago | (#31558920)

Modern Warfare 2 sold 6.4million copies in the first week in the US and UK alone and yet there weren't 6.4million new mass murders on the streets.

Just wait for version three. It'll employ direct leg input to control movement, i.e. it'll hook into an exercise bike or treadmill.

Violent gamer geeks is one thing. Violent gamer geeks with a BMI of less than 45 is another.

Re:What has gone wrong with the world? (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about 4 years ago | (#31559218)

Is it just me or is the entire world going into a period of reduced freedom and increased state control?

Nope: there is still plenty of freedom in Democratic Republic of Congo and no shortage of guns and violence (and the music is great too).

Re:What has gone wrong with the world? (4, Insightful)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | about 4 years ago | (#31559274)

I agree completely, and I've been thinking on this for a while. For example, (not to pick an inflammatory topic, but it's the first one that came to mind) is it right to call a black person a nigger? No, it's not, and I don't. Does that mean that use of the word should be legislated? Absolutely not. I do, and should, have the right to be an anti-social asshole and use whatever slurs I want. It doesn't mean that the behavior is socially acceptable, and it doesn't make it "right", but we've long ago crossed the line where the government has been legislating morality and it needs to be halted and rolled back. It is extremely prevalent in all cultures and it is both frightening and sad. From legislating the morality of marriage, to the publishing of porn, suicide, "illicit" drugs, what kind of video games I can purchase - a government has no business legislating anything that does not directly harm others, and "hurt feelings" or a different kind of high do not qualify as direct harm. I should be able to smoke pot just as I can drink tequila. I should be able to look at any porn (excluding "true" child porn) that I want. I should be able to choose any partner I want - I don't think the state should be involved in marriage at all.

I do not think a future where everyone is protected from every possible harm, insult, self inflicted damage is a good future.

Location (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558554)

Isn't Switzerland in Europe? Whats to stop swiss gamers from driving to Germany, Italy or whatever and buying their games there?

Re:Location (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 4 years ago | (#31558726)

The same thing that prevents you from buying games in Ohio if you live in Philadelphia. A couple hundred miles instead of 3 miles to your local store.

Re:Location (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 years ago | (#31558992)

You are joking, right? The whole country is barely 200 miles across. Even if you lived right in the middle you could be in a foreign country in a couple of hours.

NHL should be the more popular league in the US (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | about 4 years ago | (#31558608)

If video games cause real world behavior, based on sales of the EA NHL 94-99 series games, the NHL should be vastly more popular than it is today. There should be an entire generation of hardcore American hockey fans who grew up playing the EA games.

But, there isn't. No one played NHL 99 and suddenly decided to demand their community center add a hockey rink.

there won't be ban (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558616)

don't worry, there was no law passed. what passed was a mandate to the gov to create a law. that law needs to be voted on if it comes (and nobody knows what form it will have anyway).

even in the unlikely event that that law then will be passed by the parlament, we just need 50k signatures to get a public vote on it (in a world with facebook, that will be very easy).

So no panic, this just just the healthy way a democracy works, everybody has his ideas, and in the end we can vote on them.

What is "violent" anyway? (3, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about 4 years ago | (#31558650)

I have played all sorts of games where targeting and destroying objects is what the game is all about. This started with military flight simulations and went on to tanks, mechs and space ships. Then there was the first-person shooter... started out shooting Nazis then monsters and other people... at least the shapes were people.

Also, there have been "boxing" and wrestling games for a very long time -- widely accepted sports that are also quite violent. In fact, American football is quite violent.

I know this is targeting the grand theft auto games, but there are LOTS of games where there is killing and dying. Few with rape and beating activities, but still. As far as I am concerned, MOST games are violent or could be considered such. Where should the line be drawn? The line certainly can't be straight as there are simply too many exceptions in government.

Cops are allowed to be violent. Soldiers are allowed to be violent. The news is permitted to display violence. Art is allowed to depict violent scenes... many of which are considered to be masterpieces.

And while we are telling people what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes, let's outlaw "violent" sex play... no more bondage and certainly no role plays or sexual fantasies that might be considered violent.

The term "slippery slope" is an understatement when it comes to this topic.

Forget legislating against entertainment. Let's legislate good parenting and see how many career-minded professionals and politicians get caught up in that net.

Re:What is "violent" anyway? (1)

cockroach2 (117475) | about 4 years ago | (#31558666)

For some reason it seems you still think of politicians as rational beings. Once you get over that, a whole lot of things will suddenly start making sense...

People may not like it, (1)

Interoperable (1651953) | about 4 years ago | (#31558656)

but at least it's a clearly stated policy with a clearly stated agenda. I disagree with this kind of censorship but it's better than the "refused classification" ban in Australia which seems to be open to more liberal interpretation than this law (although we'll have to see how it's effected).

I can't believe the Swiss accepted this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558658)

Seriously? Make something illegal without defining what?

Define violent game ... (2, Insightful)

MartinSchou (1360093) | about 4 years ago | (#31558688)

Obviously pretty much any RTS is out of the question. War games as well. First Person Shooters. But what about other types of games?

Is it one where violence is the primary incentive or primary way to complete a game?
If so, where does that place a game like Thief: The Dark Project [wikipedia.org], where violence runs counter to the spirit of the game?

Is it one where any kind of violence can take place?
If so, will that not eliminate any kind of racing game, where crashes are quite violent?

Is it one where you, as a player, can inflict damage to a humanoid character?
If so, what will that do to games like The Sims, where you can trap a character inside a house, letting them starve to death or set fire to the house?

What about sandbox games like Second Life, that doesn't have a specific purpose? I realise that quite a lot of people hate Second Life, but here it's a good example of a non-violent violent game. If you want it to be violent, it can be. If you don't want it to be, it won't be.

Is Mario a violent game? After all you need to kill off a lot of enemies to complete the game, or at the very least you have to avoid them killing you. Zelda? Sonic?

What about pure text based games, like Zork? Magic: The Gathering and other similar card-games that have expanded onto the computer?

Does chess count as a violent game? What about Battle Chess [youtube.com]?

Re:Define violent game ... (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 4 years ago | (#31558986)

Does chess count as a violent game?

No, silly, only things old people don't like get banned, not everything that fits the definition.

Too Much (1)

hemlock00 (1499033) | about 4 years ago | (#31558706)

Too much government. It's sad to think that for something constructed to to keep the citizens safe would also find itself suitable to take it upon the right to deem what is acceptable for others.

Define "violence" (1)

corbettw (214229) | about 4 years ago | (#31558708)

Some games are obviously violent (GTA, Call of Duty, Quake). But what about cartoon violence, like Pokemon or even old
school Pacman? Maybe the measure addresses this
problem, but I have a hard time trusting politicians to come up with a meaningful definition that would apply to things that might need it but not to those that don't.

Of course all of this ignores the issue of one group of people deciding what larger group of can enjoy as entertainment when said entertainment isn't hurting anyone. Any state willing to do that can't call itself "free" without twisting the definition of freedom beyond anything meaningful.

A is not A anymore (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 4 years ago | (#31558730)

Did someone pass a law banning correlation between Slashdot headlines and the actual stories?

Title: game banned
Story: new law paves the way for a ban, but it's still unclear.

It use to be once in a while, but now...

What's next?

Title: Civilization destroyed in improbable cataclysmic event!
Story: 2012 released on DVD and Blu-Ray

Re:A is not A anymore (2, Informative)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 4 years ago | (#31558926)

Exactly. Switzerland is still a much more direct democracy than most countries. In Switzerland, the population is the last one having a saying, and can just block a law between coming from parliament and becoming an actual law.

I really doubt this gets trough. Switzerland is usually not that retarded. Its population is pretty active in politics. It’s not that rare that something is blocked.

Re:A is not A anymore (2, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | about 4 years ago | (#31559154)

A country that bans the building of minarets (by popular vote) is retarded. The xenophobia is rampant, and not only against Muslims. And only in 1990 women were allowed to vote in all cantons.

Regardless of their position on "violent" games, they have some serious problems.

The idea of a total ban has more holes than ... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | about 4 years ago | (#31558754)

The idea of a total ban has more holes than a lump of Swiss cheese.

Re:The idea of a total ban has more holes than ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558854)

I c wut u did thar

What's going on? (1)

drej (1663541) | about 4 years ago | (#31558776)

How come Switzerland suddenly has an opinion about everything? First the minarets, now violent games...did Zapp Braningan sent spies to stir up the place or what?

Re:What's going on? (2, Informative)

einar2 (784078) | about 4 years ago | (#31558896)

Actually, the Swiss always had an opinion about everything. However, we think our laws apply only in Switzerland. We do not think that we have to improve the rest of the world. So, maybe our opinion is not so known outside of Switzerland as the opinion of other countries sometimes is...

Disclaimer: Yeah I am biased.

Re:What's going on? (0, Flamebait)

icebraining (1313345) | about 4 years ago | (#31559180)

Yes, you are. While I strongly dislike the foreign policy of the US, Switzerland's xenophobia is an embarrassment for all of western Europe.

An empty gesture (2, Insightful)

Angst Badger (8636) | about 4 years ago | (#31558826)

Three things will happen here. First, because Switzerland is a relatively small, landlocked country, many Swiss gamers will simply take the relatively short drive to a neighboring country to purchase the games they want. Second, many games are available for purchase online, so the drive will in many cases be unnecessary. And third, anyone who was still waiting for an excuse to pirate games in Switzerland now has it, and quite frankly, more power to them.

The only way this could be more of an empty gesture is if the Swiss legislature banned wicked thoughts. Good luck with that.

Re:An empty gesture (1)

digitig (1056110) | about 4 years ago | (#31559072)

"Relatively short drive"? If you live in Berne, Multimap is giving me over 100 miles each way to get to a likely town outside Swizerland. Man, you've got to really want that game!

Re:An empty gesture (2)

vlm (69642) | about 4 years ago | (#31559264)

"Relatively short drive"? If you live in Berne, Multimap is giving me over 100 miles each way to get to a likely town outside Swizerland. Man, you've got to really want that game!

The tired old saying rears its ugly head again, in Europe they think 100 miles is far away, and in America they think 100 years is a long time ago.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558828)

Switzerland bans everything.... Not to forget Minarets http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-3-2009/oliver-s-travels---switzerland

So long free world!

Hey, Rockstar! (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 4 years ago | (#31558832)

Grand Theft Auto - Zurich

Take control of young tough Friedrich Heinz Lykakok as he battles his way up the hierarchy of the illicit precision watch market, and eventually targets the trillions of secret dollars and Euros squirreled away in secret Swiss bank accounts. In between missions, tool around the streets and find a lovely little Swiss miss with whom to pass the time.

Pre-order now and get an unlock code for the Sig 550 rifle that shoots fine chocolate bullets. Carnage in the streets never tasted so sweet!

Other end of the spectrum. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31558946)

I am not in favor of censorship, but, I am also not in favor of 'forcing opinions' onto people regardless of the medium or method... what do I mean by that?

Let me try to give you a quick example. I have a friend that is incredibly obnoxiously loud in public, and he uses alot of profanity. I've had to distance myself from him because, while I do really enjoy his company, and he is a lifelong friend, from what I've been able to gather, he likes to pretend that he is like on one of the characters on several of the various sitcoms that he watches... For example we might go to a nice restaurant with you know, families with young children around, and he's still loudly talking about his sexual life or cussing about why such and such political candidate is useless, etc etc.... Yet, to him, if anyone would dare to ask him to keep it to himself, he would see it as censorship. He would see it as someone limiting, or placing restrictions on his 'personal freedom'.

But to me this bleeds over the edge, when we are at a public area, his words are no longer 'private' over a certain decibel level / proximity to others.

Contradictorily, if someone were to try to hand him some sort of religious tract on the streets, he would go brezerk- he would say 'how dare these @$%^@#$ try to force their opinion on me!' ---- and yet, he doesn't see what he does in public areas like restaurants as him forcing his opinion on others. (reread my very first sentence now and it should make sense in the way that I meant to express it.)-- In that sense, so many things we do are continually 'forcing' our opinions onto others. If I am in a good mood, and smiling, well... its contagious! Other people around me are cheered if I am cheerful, and thus, if it is my opinion that others around me should be happy, I am to some extent, at that period in time, 'forcing' my opinion onto them. Of course, people don't call this out because if they like what you're selling, they'll buy it.

So, what does this have to do with violent video games?

From my short lived experiences on this planet it would seem that so many humans enjoy the basest of activities- maybe not to physically participate from 1st hand, but, they certainly like to be observers of such. Sexuality, violence, oppression, strife, etc. These base qualities are used by various companies or people with agendas to trigger specific reactions from people. Usually for profit. (people on television using sexuality to sell automobiles, or people on ebay taking photos of their products in the hands of pulchritudinous females with few articles of clothing, etc.)

I quit playing violent video games a few years ago. I don't "blame" (in the sense that I do not hold them personally accountable for my actions, I would not, for example, sue them, but I will most certainly say what I'm about to say) any of the companies that made the games for my behavior while I was playing them because, well... I was the one that chose to put it on my computer and spend hours at the keyboard. But how far does that go? I mean, in various states, if you sell someone a gun and they use that gun to commit a crime, you are liable for the crimes they commit while using them. Playing various violent games for me in the past most certainly inspired me to cherish far more violent thoughts in real life- unquestionably. But I am one of those people that prides myself on the fact that I can take alot of abuse from people in real life and still treat them with respect and restrain myself from lashing out at them- verbal or otherwise------- but we all know that there are many people that pride themselves on the opposite side of that- they take pride in the fact that they will not be 'walked on' by anyone else, but will most certainly lash out to prove that they are the big man in charge, etc.

I remember I used to disdainfully ridicule the very idea that violent games could lead to violent behavior. It wasn't true in my experience, so obviously it must be false, right? But no... after many years of pondering on this I have come to the conclusion that it is very possible that some people for whatever reasons ranging from mental health to various circumstances in their lives are changed by beholding such wholesale carnage on the screen, and that it is very possible that the carnage bleeds over from pixels to real life. It shouldn't be hard to admit to yourself that some otherwise totally 'normal' (whatever that is) person watching childrens programming about cotton candy couches and chocolate bunny slides is going to be far more passive than someone that just spent the last few hours watching extremely graphic war footage. We like to pretend that what we see doesnt modify our behavior, but we would most certainly be mortified if we found out that some parent was making their young children watch that insanely dark violent 'Happy Tree Friends' cartoon.

So my questions are these:

Why is it that so few people frown upon this method of 'forcing' of opinions? (Exploiting peoples base desires)
Does lack of censorship mean that everyone should be able to view whatever they want to? (Why cater to groups? Why would you fight for John Doe's right to view this one certain type of explicit pornography, while at the same time you would imprison Jane Doe for viewing the type that she decides to in her own home?)
Since it is obvious that there are things that are 'off limits' that SHOULD remain censored, who decides the demarcation points? Society? But public opinion shifts to and fro as the gregarious masses opinions are forced and coerced by their favorite comedians, their favorite news stations, and their favorite comedy news stations..... so in an ever shifting tide of social opinion, is there such a thing at all as right and wrong?

Re:Other end of the spectrum. (2)

icebraining (1313345) | about 4 years ago | (#31559242)

I mean, in various states, if you sell someone a gun and they use that gun to commit a crime, you are liable for the crimes they commit while using them.

Were? [citation needed]

I remember I used to disdainfully ridicule the very idea that violent games could lead to violent behavior. It wasn't true in my experience, so obviously it must be false, right? But no... after many years of pondering on this I have come to the conclusion that it is very possible that some people for whatever reasons ranging from mental health to various circumstances in their lives are changed by beholding such wholesale carnage on the screen, and that it is very possible that the carnage bleeds over from pixels to real life.

Yes, and cars can run people over, and planes can be used to take down whole buildings, and computers can be used for child porn, etc. Where do you draw the line?
Stop the actual people who commit the crime, don't put an unreasonable ban over everything you find "bad".

We like to pretend that what we see doesnt modify our behavior, but we would most certainly be mortified if we found out that some parent was making their young children watch that insanely dark violent 'Happy Tree Friends' cartoon.

Then you don't ban HTF; if some parents are doing that, you stop them.

Yes, it's almost impossible to find that out. But guess what: so is banning the Internet. And the first doesn't actually conflict with Human Rights.

Does lack of censorship mean that everyone should be able to view whatever they want to?

Yes

(Why cater to groups? Why would you fight for John Doe's right to view this one certain type of explicit pornography, while at the same time you would imprison Jane Doe for viewing the type that she decides to in her own home?)

Don't cater to groups. Allow every adult to watch whatever they want.

Since it is obvious that there are things that are 'off limits' that SHOULD remain censored

No, it's not.

So let me get this straight (4, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 4 years ago | (#31558952)

Every able-bodied male citizen of Switzerland is conscripted into the military at age 20 for a tour of mandatory duty (women may also volunteer), and soldiers are required to keep their weapons nearby even if they're at home. This is a country where most citizens have ready access to real militarily useful guns, and the training to use them. And they're worried about Doom?

Is there a Swiss equivalent of Jack Thompson or something?

Switzerland has NOT passed any ban! (1)

cdrnet (1582149) | about 4 years ago | (#31559138)

The two legislative organs have suggested two bans, but that's by no means the end of the story (remember, everything in politics is very slow in Switzerland, mainly due to their direct democracy approach and the fact that there's no concept of a president there to speed things up):

a) ban extremely violent games for anyone under 18 years
b) ban extremely violent games for anyone, as well as the possession, production and sale thereof

a) is well accepted and b) is highly controversial, but unfortunately made it through nevertheless. It is very unlikely that the executive will implement b) though, in fact it's even unlikely it will implement anything as there are laws banning "cruel" violence already (with a rather high bar though, considering all the horror movies making it through), and beside being too controversial, b) is in fact considered not to be implementable as it would require a constitutional change which is unlikely to happen. Even then, there would be various ways to block it if enough people agree and enforce a vote on it.

Not entirely correct (1)

Baki (72515) | about 4 years ago | (#31559144)

The government is against it.

The parliament however has approved two laws: one which forbids the sale of 18+ games to minors, and another one that forbids the sale of "violent" games completely.

How this doesn't mean yet that the laws come into effect just like that. Instead a lengthy process starts to sort out the details. I do not think it will really lead to a complete ban on violent games.

As the government has already pointed out, just to define and judge what a violent game is, a federal level authority would need to be institutionalized. This requires a change in the constitution, which won't happen overnight. Probably it will require a referendum.

The parliament doesn't really want to have both laws come into effect, but the goal is to get the discussion started at the political level (the political process here is slow and complicated, and it may take several years before something really happens).

Most likely outcome: they will recognize the european PEGI rating system and forbid sales of 18+ games to minors; it will take 1 or 2 years before it really comes into effect.

Re:Not entirely correct - Bullshit in large parts (1)

markus_baertschi (259069) | about 4 years ago | (#31559214)

The title of this article is bullshit an the contents in large parts. The journalist has apparently no clue what he/she is talking about and just aims to grab attention with a grossly wrong article.

Baki is correct, there are proposals under way to create a new law. Among them an extreme 'full ban'. The likely outcome is something 'eurocompatible', e.g. similar to what the other countries (France, Germany) do.

Markus

Online distrobution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31559200)

This only can really effect stores in switzerland i would assume. You could still get games off ebay etc... steam, or other online distribution methods or even go so far as well...piracy. I'm pretty sure the Swiss government is too dumb to realize there are other methods to acquiring software/games.

Not quite correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31559210)

This is not yet a law. There isn't even a law text. The only thing that happend is that the parliament (Nationalrat and Ständerat) has given the Bundesrat (think of the president, but 7 people) the order to create such a text. But he (the Bundesrat) first wants to "wait and observe" the situation. We will likely see a proposed text in a few years. Then first the parliament (both Nationalrat and Ständerat) needs to accept one of the proposed laws. Afterwards the people can start a Referendum with 100000 signatures and then the people will vote on it. In five years we will most likely have a law that makes the pegi ratings binding (no selling of 18+ games to a twelve year old).

Stupid law. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31559278)

It'll allow Carmageddon but forbid Rabbids go Home, as the former doesn't require violence against humans (but does allow it, with very great positive effects in game) whereas the second requires you to shout "BAAAAAAAAAAH" against humans to get more stuff from them. That's got to be one of the dumbest laws I've ever seen.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...