...I would conjecture (and that honestly is what this is) that not every country sees it as self-evident that a video game constitutes "speech" at all. I know that SCOTUS has ruled that the First Amendment applies to things like video games as it does to books and actual speeches, but when you think about it from first principles (bearing in mind why we protect the right to free speech in the first place) it's not entirely obvious that it should. Not that I'm saying it definitely shouldn't – I just mean it's less surprising that a democracy should censor video games than if it were censoring opposition party leaflets or books about anarchism.
I'd be interested to know if there's been a case in the ECtHR about video games and Article 10...
I'd be interested to know if there's been a case in the ECtHR about video games and Article 10...
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
Can someone explain Australian perspectives on free speech to me?
- 17/04/2011 08:30:58 AM
999 Views
In addition to what LadyLorraine said...
- 18/04/2011 09:00:33 AM
625 Views
Well, I meant to focus more on the banning of books, but yes, good point. *NM*
- 18/04/2011 06:40:34 PM
214 Views
its a shame that talking isn't taxed, it'd shut some gas bags i know up
- 18/04/2011 06:48:35 PM
592 Views