They have a right to ask Target to stop selling a game. Target has the right to stop selling it. We have the right to call both of them idiots.
If every retailer followed suit, it would have a chilling effect on games. I will always advocate for a society where people live and let live, instead of trying to control others' lives.
They have a right to ask Target to stop selling a game. Target has the right to stop selling it. We have the right to call both of them idiots.
If every retailer followed suit, it would have a chilling effect on games. I will always advocate for a society where people live and let live, instead of trying to control others' lives.
Lots of bigotry and prejudiced discrimination over there including genocide.
Keep in mind the Australian government does also have a lot of problems with stuff like partisanship and corruption. They like to use this stuff to advance their societal control and censorship including internet blacklists which often include oppositional political websites.
How is the decision of Target Australia and Kmart Australia to remove a game anything to do with the Australian govt?
And the US govt has corruption in spades so pot and kettle.
And my post is more directed at people in this thread screaming "OMG THIS IS CENSORSHIP." It's not censorship, it's just stupidity.
You do realise that the US was our original penal colony don't you?Australia is full of inbred prisoner descendants. Can't say I expected much from the outback.
The other side of that would be forcing people to sell stuff they don't like or preventing people expressing an opinion about things they don't like.I feel the need to remind people that just because it isn't legally enforced, doesn't mean it's not censorship.
Yes, but we're talking about a nebulous corporation here, not shopkeeper Jane who curates a specialty selection of particular titles. I rather doubt Target as an entity has much of an opinion on the game, and they did sell it prior to all this. On the other side, you have a group who's goal really is to restrict/suppress speech they find offensive. That's censorship. Removing GTA was a response to a censorious group, not an act of Target's own volition.
I think this makes the point really well, that the same argument can be made of a huge number of different things they stock and if we were to complain about all of them then they'd end up pulling lots of different products which would impede their ability to actually sell anything.
I bet the women complaining about GTA 5 weren't also calling for 50 Shades to be pulled too... If they don't like it don't buy it but to stop others from exercising their free will is wrong.
Just because someone doesn't sell what you want them to sell doesn't make it censorship.
What are the other options?
Prevent people who have a differing view to you speaking to target?
Prevent target from choosing what to stock?
People are free to express an opinion, target is free to listen to that opinion and act or not act on it. That is not censorship that's freedom. You seem to be wanting to control what people can say and targets freedom to stock what they want. That seems like a much more onerous and dangerous position to be honest.
It's still a form of censorship. The definition of censor: to examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc. A private organization can choose to censor what it sells. It's perfectly legal, it's perfectly valid, and it's not something we should be concerned about on the level of government censorship. But it is a form of censorship. If you're at work and you stop yourself from yelling out a curse word, you're self-censoring; have your rights been taken away? Of course not. But it's still censorship, and it's not wrong to label it as such. I think y'all are conflating "censorship" with "government censorship" without accepting that anyone can choose to censor content; it's only a legitimate problem when it's the government doing it.
Using "censorship" in this issue is broadening the definition into uselessness though. Just choosing not to carry a product is not censorship, if it was literally every business would be censoring themselves.
Literally every business does censor themselves to a certain extent, just as every individual does. And you're right, if we cite every instance where organizations or individuals choose to self-censor, it becomes meaningless.
But Target has decided to not stock a product they would normally carry based solely on the fact that a specific group finds the content objectionable. That's censorship, and it's not inappropriate to use the word to describe Target's actions. They're perfectly within their rights to do so, just as we're free to decry it as an act of censorship.
You seem to be caught up in a semantic argument when the dictionary definition of censorship covers this exact scenario.
The important bit is that they have chosen to not stock it. They haven't been forced and the product is still for sale elsewhere. To decry this as an act of censorship is asinine.