ah, you would be one of those people who believe freedom is a holy thing wich everyone should have?
try giving someone freedom, the freedom to kill someone. while giving the victim the freedom to live.

"no better than a nazi" "they had limits on sorts of speech and expression". this gives me the impression that those limits were the only bad things the nazi's did... i would feel awfull if you actually believe that.


when are capitalists going to understand that a world where poor people die of hunger and cold while rich people have a golden toilet isn't a good world?

words are not violence unless they present an imminent threat of physical harm? i beg to differ, one can say such words in a burst of anger while still refraining themselves. a word, a carefully chosen word, can hurt more than a broken nose. for a broken nose is physical and cosmetic while a broken soul can end a life or a broken mind can end several lives.

I think Buckshot and Nikto are both wrong. First off BSB this isn't a govt which is trying to pass laws. It's a forum for people to talk about the game in which the devs are the ones with the freedom you are supporting and that includes the right to tell all the Nazis etc to F-off and not use those kinds of symbols in their game.

Second, Nikto you are right a world in which people die from hunger etc isn't a good world, but at the same time one in which people with guns are allowed to steal isn't either. And yes a communist system does that. People with guns take what you have and give it to other people. We do that here in the States. Don't believe me? Try not paying your taxes and see how long it takes for people with guns come to take you and your money.


More OT: As said above, this is a game. As such the devs/publisher has the right to allow/disallow whatever they want. As a Libertarian I will fully support them if they choose to allow Racist/Homophobic etc symbols and clan names in their game. They won't have me as a customer and I will bad mouth them every chance I get but I will not say they don't have a right to do it.

Sure it is. It's certainly at least not approving of it. I'm not saying that people don't have the right to regulate certain things on their property- schools are communal property. You could even make a case for servers and such, portals to the online community, etc, being owned and therefore subject to the rules of the property owners. However, being in support of the right to make such rules doesn't mean one has to agree with the rules themselves. Just as I don't have to support the KKK or Nazis in order to support the right of free expression.

I prefer liberty over authoritarianism, and voluntarily joining or segregating yourself from whatever may suit your fancy or offend you, respectively. I also prefer objectivity, and what may be offensive to some people is totally subjective, with no bright line standard ever being able to be achieved. It's either all allowed, or anything could be limited under the logic of the censurer. No one has a gun to your head forcing you to play with people that offend you.

Ok this I agree with

freedom, liberty, the great human lie.
people always ignore my great point.

if you oh so value freedom and liberty, then do as i say. give 2 people absolute freedom, while one wants to kill the other, and the other wants to live and die without human intervention. do know that if you would obstruct either's freedom, you would be.. how did he say that again? ah yes, that you would be no better than a nazi.

People already have the "freedom" to kill others, just as other have the liberty to defend themselves. Laws do not physically prevent anyone from murdering. They are a form of recompense first and a deterrent second.



No, but it falls right in line with their belief that they knew what was "righteous" and "better" for the world than anyone else, while completely disregarding the life and liberty of others.



Interesting question. You should ask a capitalist. What this has to do with the natural right to speak freely is beyond me.

Sounds like a bunch of hippy crap, frankly. Psychological damage is subject to the psyche of the offended. Ending lives needs actual violence to occur. No one ever killed someone by calling them a name.

This isn't a gray area here. These are things that are clearly and commonly accepted as "bad" and "wrong" by the vast majority of the population. And you can't use one blanket rule for everything. You can't just say "If you restrict anything you can restrict everything." In the real world there are no catch-alls like that. People use their brains and their morals to decide what is allowed and what isn't. If one were to take your view to the extreme, one could say that there shouldn't be any laws or rules at all. Who are we to say that you can't murder people? That's restricting the right's of murderers, that is. If someone doesn't want to be killed, well, he or she can just not live in the same neighborhood as the murderer. There, problem solved. /sarcasm

this has already been addressed as fallacious being that people already have to ability to kill other people, regardless of the amount of laws there are against it. And lo, it is a relatively infrequent act. The question is whether it should be a punishable act, based on whether it destroys the life, liberty, or property of another. Words simply cannot do such a thing by themselves, therefore there is no real point in having any regulation over them, other than someone's desire to control humanity and shape it their image- i.e a megalomaniac.

sounds like absolute stupidity to me. bullying doesn't require physical force, a child that's being called names all his life, with all the venom in the words the bully can muster. and that child will end his life eventually.
==> the bully killed the child with words. for you can't possibly claim the child was to blame for this?

There was once a time when homosixuality was considered bad and wrong by the vast majority of the population. Should homosixuals have ever not been free to express themselves based on the whims of the majority, or who they might offend? I've addressed the application and purpose of laws several times already, as far as your comments on murder. Also, being offended is totally subjective. Being killed is not.

truly a sentence of great wisdom, especially since you were the one who pulled communism into this discussion, and thus also it's opposition.

Words CAN hurt. Some kids are verbally bullied all of the time and it would hurt their self-esteem and they end up committing suicide or committing a school shooting.

Also, words can also be powerful (for good and for worse). Martin Luther King's speech and other speeches can make people act and do something about things.

Words can bring about hate or violence or peace or action.

Hate speech will not bring about meaningful dialogue, just more hate--which can lead to more hate--which can lead to violence in the end.

I think we humans always have to be careful not to cross certain lines or else....

Anyway, in the end, games and other mediums have a right to censor certain things, regardless. If Brink devs doesn't allow certain things, then they are allowed to do so.

Bullying requires some sort of violation or abridgment of liberty. Anyone could simply walk away from being called names if they so choose. However, following someone around all day and harassing them creates a situation in which someone can't get away freely and has no other option than to stay subjected to such abuse. You cannot physically kill someone solely with words. To claim otherwise is "absolute stupidity."

Communsim goes hand in hand with abridging the liberty of others, and it is also referred to in your sig. I see no correlation between resource distribution or capitalism and freedom of speech.

Yes, but without the backing of physical action, they are just sounds, sonic vibrations or lines on a piece of paper or screen. Someone can go on about their whole life being a bigot, but so long as no actions are taken on behalf of those thoughts, it really makes no difference in the end.

do not underestimate the power of words uttered with venom. they can break a person as easily as physical pain. and it is harder to punish

The flaw in your logic is that one of those people wants to take away another person's freedom to keep living. So in that case I would support one person in defending his freedom. See? Isn't semantics wonderful?

Physically no, but if I say something that causes you to commit suicide then I could be held liable in a slim set of circumstances.

and thus, you would support one's freedom, and take away the freedom of another.
how horrid of you! you would actually take away one's freedom! nazi!

ofcourse, i myself would applaud your action at defending the one who wants to live. but, that would be a breach of freedom. the freedom you apparently value so high... so how come in this situation you would breach it, while you would despise one who would breach it before it would come to murder?

Wow. I'd say this thread got waaaaaay off-topic.

I don't know about custom emblems, but I'm pretty sure your clothing's color scheme and texture are fair game.

Umm I would be taking away freedom from someone who wanted to take away freedom from someone who was completely innocent. That is the difference. I would only have 3 choices. Help the murderer, help the victim, or stand by and wring my hands and whine about how someone is losing their freedom. Of the three, only one is a viable choice for anyone who loves freedom.

right, because you believe it's best.
then give me the freedom to do what i believe is best, putting limits on freedom to stop deliberate hurting.

as for he who does not believe in stalinism/leninism:

is freedom worth the cause?
is the idea that everything is permitted. worth pain and suffering, if that idea will get breached once you go too far?
would it not be better to limit one's freedom from the start? wouldn't that be much kinder than eventually, without warning, taking away the thing you made them believe they had?

aren't leaders chosen because they are smarter or better capable of leading? aren't leaders chosen because you believe they will make better choices?

then why, why would you object to a government leading everything?
you HAVE chosen them to lead, haven't you?
you HAVE decided they know best, haven't you?
then why do you oppose your own judgement?

Death and taking offense are not equal. Also, what about people who are offended by even the hint of a offensive, to them, term? Someone walks by as I say "[censored]" and takes offense and I get prison time because I am using the technical term for firewood? Or mention that my German Shepherd is a [censored] and I get fired for sixual harassment?

Also, what about the freedom of the people who can't choose what happens in their game? The Devs would lose freedom right? Isn't that the same thing as you are accusing me of? Why not preserve their freedom and vote with your money to support game companies that don't allow racist bastards to spew their hatred in-game?

Topic got waaaay off point people let's keep this thing on track. I am not sure about emblems if they are going to add that in or already have it in but I know each piece of clothing has a plethra of options for different color schemes and things of that nature.