New York newspaper backs free speech claim for controversial game

Free speech is a lot like cake.

A lie?

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

lol. +1+1+1+1

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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

"Everyone's in favor of free speech, as long as it's their own." -- Jerry Springer