New York newspaper backs free speech claim for controversial game

by JC Fletcher { Jun 15th 2009 at 9:30AM }

The last time we mentioned artist Wafaa Bilal's inflammatory Virtual Jihadi installation, it had been removed from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute by administrators. Shortly after that, it was moved to an art gallery in Troy, New York -- which the city's Public Works Commissioner then shut down, citing building code violations.

Last week, the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit against the city official, Robert Mirch, and the city of Troy, seeking not only damages for the gallery, but a court order to block the city from using its building code in such a way in the future.

Sunday's edition of the Albany Times Union featured an editorial about the issue, offering support for the lawsuit. "What constitutes free and protected speech in Troy, and what constitutes public safety and unacceptable building code violations, aren't merely matters of fiat," the editorial opens. "They aren't simply up to the whims of Robert Mirch. They shouldn't be, at least." Now we'll know the reason if the Albany paper is shut down tomorrow.

[Via GamePolitics]

Tags: civil-liberties, iraq, protest, troy-new-york, virtual-jihadi, wafaa-bilal

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Kamizar @ Jun 15th 2009 9:37AM

Free speech is fucking delicious!

sonicspike41 @ Jun 15th 2009 9:39AM

Free speech is a lot like cake.

Kamizar @ Jun 15th 2009 9:41AM

A lie?

sonicspike41 @ Jun 15th 2009 9:45AM

Well I was going to say delicious, but that works too.

Drew -- PS360: uphillbothways @ Jun 15th 2009 1:02PM

lol. +1+1+1+1

sonicspike41 @ Jun 15th 2009 9:44AM

You know... I'm starting to wonder if Japan dropped off the face of the earth or if they just gave up on buying consoles all together. Joystiq, I kind of miss the pointless numbers and little green and red arrows representing their love or hate for a particular company.

In more relevant news, a guy modded a game so that you play the role of a "terrorist" and everyone is up in arms? inFamous lets you zap people and become evil. Almost every FPS game out there are about killing people, some even let you kill important government/political people. I don't really see what the big deal is. At least it doesn't seem like he is openly supporting suicide bombing.

cronos1212 @ Jun 15th 2009 11:39AM

It wasn't so much about being in the role of a terrorist as it was a role reversal to show people that they may have no problem with a game where you're an american killing muslims, but if it's an Islamic Fundamentalist killing Americans, then suddenly it's not so fun.

The fact that people had a problem with the game because it depicted americans being killed only helped to serve the point of the piece.

Arnie @ Jun 15th 2009 9:55AM

Free Speech is an illusion. America should really be concerned about how the government is jumping in more and more in the daily life of the public.

WREturns @ Jun 15th 2009 10:25AM

Free speech isn't an illusion yet. It will be if people don't actually do concrete things to ensure that the government doesn't become too powerful. Unfortunately, we the people are a little too easily motivated with fear tactics, especially as they relate to terrorism and the supposed climate "problem" (because we have such a great fucking track record with predicting what the weather will do). If we would actually read some history and, oh I don't know, think about things for more than one goddamn minute maybe this wouldn't be a problem.

tenor77 @ Jun 15th 2009 10:08AM

Free speech is a double edged sword.

I personally feel that some people piss away this right with poor taste, but that is their right none the less.

The sad truth is when you try to censor a game like this you give it faaaaaaaar more press than it would have if you just ignored it.

Courtney @ Jun 15th 2009 10:10AM

Good to see a newspaper backing up free speech in games.

joeybeast @ Jun 15th 2009 10:18AM

It'd be hypocritical for them not to, wouldn't it?

Courtney @ Jun 15th 2009 10:43AM

Well, yes it would, but the history of the press is not such that their defense of free speech can be guaranteed or assumed.

manyquestions @ Jun 15th 2009 10:31AM

"Shortly after that, it was moved to an art gallery in Troy, New York -- which the city's Public Works Commissioner then shut down, citing building code violations."

"[...]a court order to block the city from using its building code in such a way in the future."

I'm seriously confused here. Independent of the free speech issue, if the city has building codes, and those bulding codes have a provision allowing them to shut a place down for this kind of thing, then how can it possibly be legal for a federal court, to essentially tell this city that it can't enforce that one part of their building codes any more?

And even if it is legal, it still doesn't make much sense. Aren't there already routes you can take to have that part removed from the codes if that's really what you want to do? Of course, I may have misinterpreted that, but this is what it seems to be saying.

Rob @ Jun 15th 2009 10:49AM

I think they wanted to shut the guy's installation down, and used the building codes as an excuse. That is probably the illegal part of it.

Courtney @ Jun 15th 2009 10:52AM

The key issue here is whether the building had previously passed inspections (some reports say it had as recently as a day or so before this opened) and whether the city is using selective enforcement to attack businesses that it has a problem with, while letting other businesses off for the same offenses.

The fact that a law exists does not mean that enforcement of that law is legal, particularly when the plaintiff can show that enforcement of the law has not been consistent in the past. If you look at the history of government crackdowns on free speech, you will find a number of examples of improper or inconsistent use of existing laws to hinder free speech when the government does not approve of the speech in question.

You can also question the implementation of the law. Often with code violations, the proper route is to give a business a set amount of time to fix certain problems before actually closing it down. If this was part of the normal process (even if it wasn't codified in law), the gallery can argue that the official was selectively interpreting the process to close them instead of giving them the same opportunities other businesses would have had.

Given these as possible issues in the case, the court absolutely has the right to step in and take a look at the situation to determine whether or not the building codes were improperly used to hinder free speech. The constitution, contrary to much popular notion, does not guarantee free speech itself, it guarantees that government shall not interfere with free speech.

zochmenos @ Jun 15th 2009 11:28AM

I wish they'd make a game about killing gay people, or Christians, or Atheists, or Jews, or Gypsies, or beating women, or raping women, or killing our President.

You know, 'cause that's what they do over there when we aren't around. That's what the "Jihad" is about when white people aren't involved.

I think it's a bit jingoistic for all of us to pretend to respect other cultures while simultaneously pretending this is simply a free speech issue. This isn't a court case nor a Constitutional issue. It's about giving sanctuary to an idea that none of you would accept in any part of your own lives.

Making this a "free speech" issue is the illusion. The newspaper's support isn't really surprising. It's a bit like companies investing in "green technology" supporting the forced "green movement"...obvious.

cronos1212 @ Jun 15th 2009 11:33AM

Yay! A news story mentioning Albany!!!

I never understood the protests about this installation. The person takes a game about killing Islamic fundamentalists and ultimately Osama Bin Laden, and reverses it to be about killing Americans and George Bush, just to show people what it's like when the shoe is on the other foot, and suddenly people have a problem with it. It wasn't an issue when it was about killing muslims, and it was just created to cast light on our own prejudiced actions.

Not that I would have gone to Troy to see the installation... Not exactly the most beautiful area in the capital district...

zochmenos @ Jun 15th 2009 11:36AM

Why shouldn't people have a problem with it?

Doesn't the whole "free speech!" chant just become an excuse not to think about the hard issues?

cronos1212 @ Jun 15th 2009 11:35AM

The problem wasn't so much as the building had code violations, it is that they shut it down because the building may have had code violations. They shut it down so the violations could be looked into, and nothing really came of the violations in the end.

They simply used a loophole excuse to not allow the building to open for the installation.

cronos1212 @ Jun 15th 2009 11:36AM

Darn comment system (and i secretly mocked all of those that blamed the comment system on them not putting a comment in the right place)

This should have been in reply to manyquestions

Bones3D @ Jun 15th 2009 12:14PM

It just goes to show that literally anyone who uses threats and fear to gain an advantage over others is a "terrorist". It's merely one's politics and locale that determines whether or not it's right or wrong.

Heck, from a child's perspective, corporal punishment and grounding are both forms of terrorism... actions intended to deter undesired behavior using fear as a weapon of psychological warfare.

Alex McKee @ Jun 15th 2009 12:33PM

The problem with free speech is the turds who don't know how big of a deal it is. Trolls who go around saying libelous things almost always use the Free Speech defense, but that's not quite right. Free Speech /= the right to be a total asshole. A fine example of people abusing that right would be 4chan.

K1LLSWITCH @ Jun 15th 2009 4:00PM

The city has the right to shut down the exhibit if they deem it inappropriate, unfortunatley in this case they cited city building code violations instead of outright calling it for what it is. Yes all Americans have the right to free speech but speech like this is completely inappropriate and potentially damaging to our country. What's next an open parade of the destruction of America? Cmon.