Jabrwock

@Carl

"The idea that that profit and expression are mutually exclusive goals poses a much greater threat to the game industry's image. If this business is seen as a money-making enterprise only, few people will have qualms about regulating it. If the public can be made aware of those developers who have vision and also make money at what they do, I think they will take notice."

An excellent point.

@Lampbane

"I don't think there's been any really public controversy talking about SCMRPG. Most of those legislators have never heard of it"

The Washington Post (and the Toronto Star, the CBC, Rocky Mountain News, etc) had an article about it. So I imagine at least some of them saw the words "game based on Columbine" and connected it with Jack Thompson's assertion that Bully is "Columbine Simulator". Connect that with the description of SCMRPG from the WP, and they end up thinking that Bully features all the stuff from SCMRPG, and is sold in Walmart under a "T" rating... At that point you can understand their outrage, misdirected as it is.

The trick is to distance themselves so people know the difference between Bully (aka "Only Called The Columbine Game Because a Hack Lawyer Made A Soundbyte"), and Super Columbine Massacre RPG (aka "The REAL Columbine Game").

If they go about it the wrong way, they risk denouncing SCMRPG by implying that they would never have something to do with such "garbage". Which in the end would only hurt the medium's chances at ever being taken seriously as more than just a kids' toy.

They need to firmly and clearly (but politely) remind people that SCMRPG is a non-commercial, independant work of ART, and was not produced by the video game industry. And that despite a certain lawyer's claims, no industry producer has a "Columbine" game. [Insert description of Bully here]

By doing so, they make it clear the two are not the same, while reinforcing the idea that LeDonne work has artisic merit. (to those who disagree that it's art, you failed english class, art isn't just what's pretty, it's the expression of an idea through a medium, and yes, offending you is a message too...)

I think a better approach would be to make it clear that a) SCMRPG is not a commercial product, and b) that Bully is not a "Columbine" game.

To simply denounce SCMRPG merely reinforces the idea that games are incapable of expressing any ideas except those that are palatable to the masses.

@Captain Obvious

"This presents absolutely zero free speech implications. This is not proprietary government activity. The city has the right to choose its advertising partners, just as anyone else does."

Actually, the government is bound by by the constitution to be an equal opportunity advertiser. Take Two could sue for discrimination, and based on past cases involving the MBTA, TT would win. A pro-marijuana group sued and won the right to advertise on MBTA trains, because the 3-judge court ruled that the MBTA, as a public utility, had to allow freedom of speech, and couldn't justify denying an advertiser simply because it disagreed with the message or the product. As long as the ad itself didn't violate any laws, they couldn't legally deny them an ad contract.

@Evan

"Why shouldn't violent games be treated like porn? They are both for adults. Violent games depict acts of brutality, while porn usually just depicts people having sex."

Because violent movies don't get treated like porn. Even the ones more gory and violent that the most violent video game. And therein lies the hypocracy. R-rated movies with people getting gutted, dismembered, and put through a meat grinder are ok to display on the MBTA billboards, because they allow R rated movies. But a game like Halo, where there's barely any blood, no guts, and only minor swearing, gets treated like it's A Night in Paris?

I'm not entirely sure how her signage bill is supposed to be enforced. I mean technically it's compelled speech, which is unconstitutional. The ESA might not fight it because they ask retailers to post it anyway, but I can see a specialty retailer getting the law overturned the minute they get a fine.

"I don't understand what Mr. T from Miami is complaining about here when he claims that I am a censor"

Mr T clearly fails to realise that the first amendment is a right applied to public venues. So while he has the right to spew his vitriole from his own website, and noone can censor that, he's pissy that he can't hijack someone else's website to do the same.

He's a perfect example of why the US is in such a disarray. Few people actually READ the constitution... He merely cherry picks those parts that suit him during the current situation. Believe me, if he were the one on the receiving end of attempts at censorship (and as much as he would love to advertise, he's not), he'd be holding the Constitution up in it's entirety like it was handed to him from God herself.

@crono141

Heavy Metal is a good example too. Check Wikipedia for the other two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_the_Cat_%28film%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Lives_of_Fritz_the_Cat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizards_%28film%29

Both were heavy commentaries on society. Wizards was about the struggle between "magic" and "technology", and how propaganda is the ultimate tool in war. And Fritz was about sexual liberation, corrupt governments, and general 70's revolutionary type discussion by bohemians and poets as they try to discover cosmic truths while chasing girls. Fritz had the distinction of being the first American animated feature film to be rated "X". It also grossed #2 behind "The Godfather".

@ Crono141

"So if there's an animated film that comes out that ISN'T for kids, parents will get pissed off, same as with video games."

When talking to parents about why some games/cartoons aren't for kids, I bring up the examples of Fritz the Cat or Wizards. Some are old enough to remember such films.