Posted by
cavalier973 on Sunday, May 04, 2008 11:21:47 AM
If you go here you can read the wikipedia article on Grand Theft Auto 4:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTA4
And here is the Baptist Press article on the game: http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0%2C1703%2CA%25253D167602%252526M%25253D200727%2C00.html?
From the description, there are elements to the game that actually sound fun. Exploring an environment that detailed seems interesting. There is open gameplay, which means you are not tied down to the "missions" that are necessary to complete the game. If it's anything like the earlier games, you can do things like steal taxi cabs and drive around collecting fares; steal a police car and you can go vigilante, pulling over speeders, etc. It's escapist fantasy.
The plot involves you taking the role of an ex-Serbian soldier who comes to America. You quickly become involved in criminal activity, stealing cars, murdering people; you know, fun stuff.
So should GTA4 be banned? Social Libertarians have a solid argument against banning the game: that the government should not be interfering in our personal lives. But aren't there some activities that should be banned even if they do no direct harm to others? Say, smoking marijuana? Of course all Libertarians give a resounding "NO!" to this question. They say that while government should protect its citizens from each other, it has no business protecting us from ourselves. Following this philosophy to its logical conclusion, the Libertarians will say that suicide should not be illegal (especially for those, say, dying of cancer). But in holding to this philosophy, Libertarians don't seem to understand that we are social creatures; it is possible for me to engage in behavior that, while "harming" no one directly, can still be hurting others, violating their rights.
Mentioned in the earlier wikipedia article is a provision in the law against "public nuisance", which applies to loud music, loitering, etc. A game in which you assasinate real people, like the President, might be banned under this provision of the law. A lawyer in Florida sued to stop distribution of the GTA4 game based on this premise. The case was settled out of court, and the game will continue to be distributed in Florida, so it looks like the game won't be banned under this premise.
The only solid argument that might convince a Libertarian that a video game should be banned, is if it can be directly tied to acts of violence, rapine, and other criminal activities; something that would be almost impossible to do.
So what about Tropico? If I am going to ban a game for violence, why not a game that allows you to torture political prisoners and cheat at elections? The difference is that you are not shown graphic depictions of people being "tortured". Also, in order to win at Tropico, you are not required to engage in the corrupt behavior. You can win by being squeaky clean just as well as being a Fidel Castro.
In GTA4, you are not given that option. You must be a criminal to win the game. It's almost humorous that Libertarians defend people's "right" to play a video game in which the whole purpose seems to be violating people's rights. You are required to think like a criminal, act like a criminal, to the very end. You cannot join the police force and arrest the main bad guy. You are not allowed to take the role of the prosecuting attorney, digging up evidence to bring down the criminal syndicate. You don't get to start a local chapter of the Guardian Angels. No, it's all stealing cars and killing cops, all the while seeking "revenge" against, get this, people who did bad stuff to you.
There are levels to acceptability, and reasonable people can see what's acceptable and what's not. Some people accuse me of trying to be a "dictator", forcing "my views" on everyone else. But it's not just me, myself. A lot of people; reasonable and responsible people; conservative people; people who believe in limited government; that are distressed by this descent into immorality. At some point, a video game will become so offensive that overwhelmingly these people will say that it should be banned by the government. And they will be right, and they will succeed in their endeavor. As I mentioned in the earlier post, what if a company published a game where you played as a member of the KKK? or if you were the leader of a terrorist group planning and executing acts of terrorism? What if the game had you continually assault, molest, and murder children (virtual, of course)? What if the game allowed you to paste pictures of your neighbor's children onto the avatar? Social Libertarians might still defend the "right" to play such games, but people who will have to deal with the consequences of game players that are inured to the idea of social destruction will not.