Game Development Community

When controversial titles go wrong

by Charlie Malbaurn · in General Discussion · 12/22/2004 (2:23 am) · 47 replies

I was just reading an article here that talks about a Austin companies 'Man show" type game that ended up having a couple of problems.

I posted this because of the growing number of debates recently about where the line should be drawn and was wondering what people's opinions on this type of thing.

I also figured that maybe we can keep it centralized. Slamming peoples work because we don't agree with it is not accomplishing anything.
NextNext Thread
PrevPrevious Thread
More from General Discussion
Page«First 1 2 3 Next»

Torque Owner Gonzo T. Clown
#41
12/23/2004 (4:10 pm)
Interesting case here. Turns out child porn may not be quite as illegal as we first thought....

www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16451

Torque 3D Owner Stephen Zepp
#42
12/23/2004 (4:18 pm)
Well, the commonly used definition for pornography legally is similar to "appeals to the prurient interest", and is applied to the standard of the "average member of the community" (please don't quote me here, this is from a couple of law classes literally 18 years ago).

As far as I can tell Gonzo, this is why that case you mention was thrown out, and also why my personal opinion is that it doesn't apply to the case here--the photos of this chick are most definitely appealing to the prurient interest, as it were...

P.S.: "prurient interest" was always hard for me to get someone to actually define, but in general my understanding is that something of prurient interest makes you think about sex. Basic, but a decent way of thinking about it. That's why the photos of the girls at the beach are not considered pornography--they don't make the average community member think about sex, or so how I read it.

Torque Owner Will Harrison
#43
12/23/2004 (6:00 pm)
Same thing happened here in B.C. not too long ago:

www.efc.ca/pages/media/national-post.16jan99.html

Torque Owner Nate "Nateholio" Watson
Default Studio Name
#44
12/31/2004 (11:49 am)
I have to agree with Gonzo for once, esp about her being so "humiliated". In any case, if she didnt want to be "humiliated" she shouldnt have been topless on public land or viewable from public property. Its been long overdue that people start taking personal responsibility for their actions here (US). Lets hope the court finds her guilty of public indecency, but that probably wont happen, and if it does itll probably be reversed - after all, women here can do whatever they please. But anyways...well said Gonzo.

Torque Owner Charlie Malbaurn
#45
01/03/2005 (9:51 pm)
Nate, have you ever done anything stupid while drinking that you didn't regret the next day? Saying something that sounded good at the time. Doing something you thought was funny. Then you wake up the next day, everything is fine and wooof... it smacks you in the head like a speeding train.

So maybe the girl was drunk, dudes where screaming show me your .... and she did. Happens all the time. You think girls go to rock concerts with the assumption that there going to flash there ta ta's?

If i did something stupid, I think I would be humiliated if it was posted on the internet or in a video game.

Starwars kid anyone?

Torque Owner AndrewOsborne
#46
01/03/2005 (9:59 pm)
If she was under age her parents are running the show, would you want some sketchy devs photographing your little girl for millions of guys to have a play at? i think not and i dont even have kids.

Torque Owner Will Harrison
#47
01/04/2005 (12:15 am)
You really have to look at the pics and read the story before you can comment...

link

link

She *knows* she's on somekind of publicly viewable show for all to see or play.... and she doesn't look drunk either....

....and the whole age thing probably won't hold up in court either.
Page«First 1 2 3 Next»