Is it right for a government that's pro-freedom to ban any entertainment that contains anti-freedom elements?

Question

I ask this question in regards to a game (Final Fantasy 7) that was banned (the selling of new copies) by the U.S. because at one point the characters belonged to a terrorist organization that fought against a corrupt governent. If there were terrorists in say, Nazi Germany, who fought against the governent, would we not think of them as heroes of some sort? I'll also add that the "terrorist group" in the game specifically targeted sites where there would be no innocents hurt.

How can a government support freedom so vehemently, and so quickly take it away? I hope this is understood not simply in the game situation, but in other areas such as gay rights, etc...

Answer 1

The answer is that the goverment is not truely pro-freedom but instead pro-approved freedom. That is you can be free to do anything that you wish so long as it conforms to the wishes of the state.

Many times in the past this subject has been brought up, are we free or are we free at the states behest. The answer is and always has been we are as free as our fear of an imagined threat has allowed the goverments to allows us to be.

The only way that people have gotten their freedoms back after totalitarian rule (which is were we are going if not careful) is after a revolution, and I fear the next one that is coming, will we survive it?

Hope this helps.

Answer 2

A government that is pro-freedom SHOULD operate with the confidence that its citizens are capable of making sound decisions and that devices of entertainment will not be enough to change their minds and attitudes about freedom.

It's akin to parents deciding when their children are old enough to watch Rated R movies. That is, when they are educated enough to distinguish between right and wrong for themselves and not be swayed too much by any one influence. A pro-freedom government is the parent who realizes that for his children to be productive on their own, they must learn to make their own decisions.

A so called pro-freedom government placing restrictings on devices of entertainment is a failed parent, and should be called out as such.

I want to add a quote from I believe Oliver Wendell Holmes: "My freedom to swing my fist ends where the other guy's nose begins."
Which to me means, do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I believe that these video games should definitely be available for sale, but not to certain individuals who haven't developed proper judgement. It's impossible to fully determine who is and is not ready for such games or even whose place it is TO determine readiness. Even aforementioned parents don't always know when it's the right time for their own children to make their own decisions.

The government really doesn't care. When it comes to censorship they go ahead and censor whatever because the group for stronger censoring is always more of a pain in the government's *** than the group against it.

Answer 3

You've couched your question within a political statement.

It belongs in a values statement:

As a responsible parent, would you allow your children to play a video game and fantacize about the violence of terrorism?

If my government banned this game, I must be living in the right country. Most politicians don't know what values really are.

(Interesting. Two of your answers are from people who place freedom above values. Notice that they have to enter a theoretical world to do so. I'm a parent. I didn't have to do that.)

Answer 4

First of all but with no offense to you, you're talking about a GAME, and one that promotes extreme violence. The argument has less to do with how or by whom the violence is portrayed than it has to do with a portrayal of violence at all, especially experienced by youth.

To answer your Q more directly, even a democracy such as ours in the USA has standards with regard to ammendments such as #1, and interpretation of that or any freedom is often nebulous. Example: I may be Allowed, by that ammendment to state I'd engage in an assasination, but I suspect, once public in stating so, I'd be attended to.

Steven Wolf