Sections

Zoe Quinn publishing Gamergate memoir

Amy Pascal's Pascal Pictures has already snapped up the rights

Zoe Quinn, Depression Quest developer and founder of online support network Crash Override, is writing a memoir about her battle with Gamergate which will be published by Simon & Schuster's Touchstone in September next year. That memoir will also be made into a film.

According to Deadline Amy Pascal has already snapped up the film rights to the book, called Crash Override: How to Save the Internet From Itself. The site also published Quinn's proposal, titled Control Alt Delete, for the memoir:

"Gaming and internet message boards used to be niche interests, mostly for young men. In the past few years, however, they've gone mainstream. Millions of people - including women and other marginalized people - have taken an interest in the platforms, image boards, and discussion forums that once belonged by default to a much smaller population. Most gamers give zero fu*ks about this. Like the rest of us, they're just here to play games. But a vocal minority are clinging onto the brand of Cheetos-and-Mountain-Dew exclusionary identity 'hardcore gamer,' muttering 'fu*kin casuals' under their breath."

Meanwhile Deadline also suggests that Scarlett Johansson could be in the running to play Quinn.

Screenwriters Rebecca Angelo and Lauren Schuker Blum will adapt the memoir and Pascal Pictures will finance development and produce with Rachel O'Connor and Entertainment 360.

For more on Quinn's work with Crash Override check out this interview.

Related stories

Patreon raises user fees to stabilise creator payouts

UPDATE: Crowdfunding platform decides not to add $0.35 service charge after creators begin to lose subscribers

By James Batchelor

Steam's new Curator Connect feature targets key-scamming

System emerges from beta to help all developers find genuine influencers

By James Batchelor

Latest comments (40)

Andrew Watson Tools Programmer 2 years ago
How do you make a movie out of people saying mean things on the internet?

Genuine question, I honestly can't think of how this could possibly be successful in any shape or form.
6Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brendan Sinclair Senior Editor, GamesIndustry.biz2 years ago
They made a movie about Colin Farrell being stuck in a phone booth for an hour and a half. I'm pretty sure they can make a movie about a person fearing for their life after becoming the target of an aggressive and sustained campaign of hatred and death threats.

They made a movie about four people trapped in an elevator with the devil.

They made two movies about a couple guys who pretend that their recently deceased boss is still alive.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Brendan Sinclair on 7th November 2015 9:50pm

20Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paul Jace Merchandiser 2 years ago
How do you make a movie out of people saying mean things on the internet?
I suppose they could make it as a documentary film or even a mockumentary film depending on the angle they are going for. I'm not sure if it would be successful but I imagine it would probably have a pretty low budget so there might not even be that much cost to recoup.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Show all comments (40)
Darren Adams Managing Director, ChaosTrend2 years ago
C'mon Brendan, 3 posts in succession with films proving your point?! Surely as a writer for GamesIndustry.biz you would combine them into one post or is this just the "weekend article" that needed a little padding?

EDIT: Aha, good combination job Brendan, see how much nicer that looks now. :)

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Darren Adams on 7th November 2015 11:08pm

7Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Klaus Preisinger Freelance Writing 2 years ago
The movie should be about a bunch of people who coincidentally meet on the Internet, hate on each other for various nonsensical reason, but mostly boredom and lack of being able to cope when the childish viewpoints on an industry/other humans collapses under a dose of Reality(TM). The characters then go on a journey of discovery on how twisting facts and narrowing viewpoints can be used to build a following that grows out of control. In essence, it is a revenge movie, however, not in an action sense, but more akin to something such as She-Devil. Instead of a divorce, you have a thread gone bad as the source of all motivation for the characters and build from there. I am tempted to say that "they" already made plenty of these types of movies and many TV channels are based on that premise alone. Michael Moore adapted the concept for documentaries and the life of Zoe Quinn has become the sad (scripted) reality version of that.

You could even frame it as a big allegory and call it "The Religious War for Atheists". It makes for some good meta-commentary on politics as well.

p.s.: most German stores neither sell Cheetos nor Mountain Dew, does that mean Zoe is saying that you cannot be against her, if your local territory is not selling these products? Not very inclusive, is it? Modern times, when even pegging somebody as something requires brand names.
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Charles Herold Wii Games Guide, about.com2 years ago
I don't know what the book will be like, but in the movie I imagine Scarlett Johansen will be at war online with a Gamer Gater and will at the same time fall in love with a sweet guy she meets in a coffee shop before discovering they're THE SAME GUY. Depending on how things go after that, it's either a rom-com or a thriller.

And to add to Brenden's point, they made a movie about two guys in a restaurant conversing. And they made a play about two guys waiting for someone who never shows up.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Joshua Temblett XO.TV, Editor-in-Chief 2 years ago
Is it bad that I really, really wanna see that film Charles :D! I'm a sucker for a good rom-com :D.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Robert Mac-Donald Game Designer, Lethe Games2 years ago
A movie about a person who wants to censor free speech in the west: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/

Don't be surprised if some of us consider the movie fascist propaganda once it is out.
5Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
David Vink Game Designer 2 years ago
Haha lovely link there, Robert. A real can of right-wing worms.
6Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Robert Mac-Donald Game Designer, Lethe Games2 years ago
I am not right wing at all David. Nor would I try to censor her opinions or her movie.

So maybe focus on what the article is actually saying instead of attacking people that have nothing to do with me or this discussion

Edit: the person who wrote that article also happens to be gay, if it helps.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Robert Mac-Donald on 9th November 2015 12:20am

3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Curt Sampson Sofware Developer 2 years ago
Robert, you're absolutely correct. I do find it ironic, however, that the article you reference correctly states that the only problems women have on the Internet are those of their own making, but then goes on to say that women in Islamic societies are somehow oppressed in a way that women on the Internet are not. After all, those Imams who recommend that women be stoned (for driving or whatever) are merely exercising their right to free speech, and women in Islamic societies should just ignore what they say. The vast, vast majority of women in these societies are not imprisoned, and thus they are perfectly free to leave thier household if they feel that they're being oppressed. And, in the larger view, half of these societies are women, so they clearly have the ability to stand up to men on any issue they care about, if they cared to do it.

We have ample evidence, ranging from real-life Soviet gulags to experiments such as Stanley Milgram's infamous one, showing that, when humans are oppressed through social rather than physical means, it's only the weak ones who let themselves be oppressed by these means, and so the only ones who come to "harm" are the weaklings who deserve it. Any person without the internal strength to handle thousands of people telling them on a constant basis that they're stupid and worthless is a person who probably isn't contributing much to society anyway, so even if they end up killing themselves, it's no big loss, right?
12Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Alfonso Sexto Lead Tester, Ubisoft Germany2 years ago
What I'm not sure if it's ironic, funny or sad, is the reactions you can already find regarding this:
So they are going to make a movie about a game developer who fights against a group that she claims is a bullying threatening hate mob... and said groups is now behaving like a bullying threatening hate mob to prove her wrong...
Good thing that actually it's all about ethics in game journalism. Right?
14Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Alfonso Sexto Lead Tester, Ubisoft Germany2 years ago
@Robert
Milo Yiannopoulos is also gay. That didn't made a difference.
So no, I don't think sexual orientation is a factor at all in an argument other than sexual orientation itself.
6Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Robert Mac-Donald Game Designer, Lethe Games2 years ago
After all, those Imams who recommend that women be stoned (for driving or whatever) are merely exercising their right to free speech, and women in Islamic societies should just ignore what they say.
Physical harm and disagreeing or criticizing someone's ideal or personality are not the same thing.
In fact, free speech is often what keeps people from physically abusing each other. Once you select a group of people and take away their free speech, that is when they might resort to violence.

Women in the countries you described have problem achieving fair laws because they often cannot even voice their opinions about it without physical harm or being imprisoned. You don't hold absolute morality in your hand do you Curt? So why are you acting like you do? Free speech is the realization that none of us are absolutely right about anything, and we should let people say what they want because nobody is absolutely right.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic 2 years ago
Free speech is the realization that none of us are absolutely right about anything, and we should let people say what they want because nobody is absolutely right.
You do realise that this exact thinking leads to giving a platform to those who would harm lives, right? As an example, even if you ignore scientists "absolute certainty" about the benefits of vaccinations and the lack of a link with Autism, the willingness to allow anti-vaccination campaigners air-time under the auspices of "free speech" has undoubtedly caused harm. And that's not the only example I could give.
In fact, free speech is often what keeps people from physically abusing each other. Once you select a group of people and take away their free speech, that is when they might resort to violence.
US Pro-life/anti-abortion campaigners and their violence would seem to undercut your argument.

Edit to add:

If a cinema asks you not to yell "fire!" during the screening of a film, do you yell "censorship!" instead? Or do you defer to the point-of-view which says "Hang on a minute, there's some things which I can say, but I acknowledge I should not say them"?

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 9th November 2015 4:36pm

9Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Anthony Chan2 years ago
I am all for ending harassment, bullying and all sorts of violence on the internet. But, in this case, I really have to question on-boarding one victim's story into a book deal and movie rights.

A very serious subject is about to get super sensationalized with the Hollywood treatment - and I am against this altogether. The issue needs to be discussed in a professional, academic, and constructive way. Turning it into a bestseller and movie just polarizes the sides even more and potentially marginalizes the real issues - since at the end documentary, mockumentary, adaptation; they all must have entertainment value... or studios and publishing houses wouldn't sign.

I see no benefit to adding entertainment value to this issue. Seeing this issue conveyed in a style similar to The Insider, Super Size Me, Blackfish, The Social Network, or any victim story "based on a true story" is not helping all of put an end to violence - and that should be the ultimate goal.
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paolo Giunti Narrative Designer 2 years ago
*sigh*
I can't believe there's still people who can't see the line of what the right of free speech entitles you and what doesn't.

The right to free speech means that you can express yourself and suffer no harm for stating your thoughts and opinions. However, the right to free speech (or the right to freedom in general) does not cover words and actions used with the intent to cause harm (not only physical, but also psychological and emotional) or to promote harm against one individual or a group: this would be abuse.

Just for the record: one expressing a negative opinion which may eventually offend someone too sensitive is not the same thing as one who deliberately goes out of his way to make that someone miserable. Bullying is not covered by free speech. It never was.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Paolo Giunti on 9th November 2015 10:28pm

18Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paul Ledbury News Editor / Writer, TheSixthAxis2 years ago
As you say, there is no benefit to the movie but there is a massive cheque for Zoe, and who wouldn't turn down a nice fat lump of cash if Hollywood came calling?
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Anthony Chan2 years ago
@Paolo well said!! ... not even sure how free speech got into this debate anyways. This was never an issue of free speech. She can write a book and make a movie. I just don't like Hollywood treatments of important issues - my disdain is for Hollywood.

People can dislike and vocalize their dislike for her opinions as much as they want as that is Free Speech. However, NOBODY should be allowed to turn those words into weapons and constantly attack her and others. The Sticks and Stones argument is retarded, and it causes the perpetrators of hate to believe their words are harmless activism. People who carry on about their constitutional rights as the shield for their hatred are pig-headed morons.

Seriously, whatever happened to "listening, and just respectfully agree to disagree".
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Robert Mac-Donald Game Designer, Lethe Games2 years ago
Censorship and authoritarian control. That's the what the "progressives" believe in. So much for the enlightenment.
Progressives are turning into the new conservatives.
You do realise that this exact thinking leads to giving a platform to those who would harm lives, right?
Yes. And it is our job to take all arguments in consideration when creating our policies, instead of only listening to a selected few that already mirror our ideals. Otherwise, you are living in a totalitarian regime. How is this a difficult concept to grasp? You either have free speech, or in a few years you'll go back to a society with legitimate oppression through laws and lack of rights. What do you think stops a society from having a dictator that wants to kill all the gays? A dictator that wants to kill all the straights? No, free speech. People like Zoey and Anita have literally spoke at the UN, and one of them said that saying "you suck" should be treated like physical violence to women. These are people wanting to censor society, and video games, our trade. I hope I'm not the only one standing against them.

Without freedom of speech you give injustice what it needs to settle in.
If a cinema asks you not to yell "fire!" during the screening of a film, do you yell "censorship!" instead?
No, because when you yell fire and there isn't any, you are putting people into possible physical harm. If there is no fire, people may trample over each other anyway. Yell fire all the time, when there is a real fire people will ignore it and burn. Yelling fire is not censored because of moralism, tradition nor values, but because it can get people killed.
4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Anthony Chan2 years ago
@Paul :( Well the cheque will probably depend on how the book and movie does. I couldn't care less is she made financial gains off her ordeal - not a big fan of it. Again, I am skeptical if Hollywood is able to present anything objectively. But in any case, this IMHO is what I wanted the issue to avoid altogether....
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paolo Giunti Narrative Designer 2 years ago
... not even sure how free speech got into this debate anyways.
It's mostly the article linked by Robert: it attempts to portray cyber-bullying as "criticizing over the internet". To say the two are pretty much the same thing is extremely shortsighted if not deliberate misinformation.
8Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Robert Mac-Donald Game Designer, Lethe Games2 years ago
Paolo and Anthony Chan, do you think telling someone over the internet "you suck" is enough to warrant police intervention, along with governments monitoring ISPs to enforce that ISPs themselves monitor users who are saying "you suck" to others on the internet?

If you agree with this, I find this insane. Free speech should cover things perceived as insults, otherwise you can't think obesity is an issue because it falls into "fat shaming". Harassment is one thing: when someone keeps coming after a person, doesn't matter if to give them flowers or say something hurtful. Harassment laws are there to protect people's physical space. Personally I don't even think they should apply to the internet unless someone is using bots/proxies to circumvent bans, because otherwise you can just click the ignore button instead of requesting police to make an IRL ignore button for you.

If you don't agree, then you need to wake up and smell the coffee because Zoey's appearance at the UN called exactly for what I mentioned, for governments and ISPs monitoring users and websites who let people say "you suck". That is why this conversation led to free speech, because people like Zoey are actively trying to remove free speech, and she got a seat at the UN for that. That is pretty scary.

This whole campaign of "we must protect people's feelings so you can never say something hurtful" is draconian. It is not necessary, it will in the end target comedians and other people. And ultimately, I believe that the people calling for forceful measures on the internet against having their feelings offended, are in the end, the most violent kind of people there is. They want to use force to shut other people up. In real life, those are the real bullies. They beat you, laugh at you, say you have "white privilege" and "male tears" and whatever else they want to say that is negative to you, and if you reply back, they beat you until you stop talking. That is what IRL bullies do, and the people on the internet are trying to do the same. They are trying to make what they want to be perceived as hate speech being handled by the police, while the opinions they say that can be considered racist like "all whites have privilege" to not be hate speech, because they say so. That's insane and illogical, and well, violent.
4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Robert Mac-Donald Game Designer, Lethe Games2 years ago
I'd like to offer Zoey sympathizer's a final thought.

I'm a vegan. If you want to argue for the right to eat animals, or even harm them because you think they don't process pain, I wouldn't take that right away from you. But if one day, we start treating any talk of eating animals as hate speech, because the media and governments for any reason are pushing for that (hey, maybe I was elected president), then you'll find yourself not being able to speak your mind because it is hate speech, and it is offensive to people.

And that would be exactly the kind of society you wished for, when you said we should have policies against hate speech and offensive speech, and that we should not give a platform for those whose speech may cause harm (to animals, in this case). As you can see, this kind of talk can easily, easily backfire on you when you find yourself in the "wrong side of history".
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
James Berg Games User Researcher, EA Canada2 years ago
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Andrew Watson Tools Programmer 2 years ago
As much as online harassment is a problem it is horrible to see governments and organizations like the UN use it as an excuse to increase spying and censorship, in the same way that words like "terrorists" are used.
Good thing that actually it's all about ethics in game journalism. Right?
Nice meme! The more you repeat it, the more true it gets!

Now consider the two SXSW panels. Now remind me, which group wanted to talk about how terrible mainstream games journalism has gotten, and which group wanted to talk about harassment?
4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Casey Anderson Game Data Analyst, Big Fish Games2 years ago
How do you make a movie out of people saying mean things on the internet?
I get the impression that it will focus on how online harassment transcends the internet into modern life and how much of a problem doxxing has become. In her interview she mentions non-stop pizza deliveries and swatting, which would both make good subjects for a movie, in combination with some sort of plot of course.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Casey Anderson on 9th November 2015 9:28pm

3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Curt Sampson Sofware Developer 2 years ago
James: thanks for the link to the report itself!

Comparing it with the article posted by Robert Mac-Donald is enlightening. The former is a carefully considered look at the situation that explicitly says we need to preserve free speech even in the face of psychological violence, and that regulation is only one of several ways to attempt to do this, and not the preferred way.

The article, completely ignoring this, also ignores even the fact that sometimes speech can cause more harm than good, and utterly mischaracterises what the authors of the report are saying, deliberately lying (to put not too fine a point on it) in order to stir up anger and indignation on the part of certain groups.

I'm tempted to exercise my right of "free speech" here in order to post a bunch of lies about Robert and make him out to be The Embodiment Of All Evil; I'm sure he would welcome me supporting his position in this way. But let's just put down my not doing that, not to mention my not doxing him and lying about him to people known to be violent, to me being too lazy to properly support "free speech."

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Curt Sampson on 10th November 2015 1:55am

4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Robert Mac-Donald Game Designer, Lethe Games2 years ago
That UN article may have been rewritten/revised in face of the criticism Curt. It was a big story on the internet when it happened, and a twitter users even spotted a citation that the source was pointed as a c:\file on the user's computer.

Regardless, even If the original report mentioned that " we need to preserve free speech even in the face of psychological violence", the part that mentioned those regulations needed to face the criticism it faced for it.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/united-nations-apologizes-for-fault-ridden-cyberviolence-report
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Alfonso Sexto Lead Tester, Ubisoft Germany2 years ago
"How do you make a movie out of people saying mean things on the internet?"
I would start with a voice like in "Lord of The Rings", in which the narrator explains how Doxing, death threads and seeing naked pics of your body published on the internet without your consent was considered "mere mean things" for some people.
This is exactly where the problem is: it's just "mean things" in the head of some people and that is where the real tragedy is. What does it take ti get some people out of their negation bubble? somebody to die, maybe? and more important: What is that prevent some of you to accept (JUST ACCEPT!) that this problem is a big thing.
Guess denial is easier. Once again we hide under the "It never happened to the girls in my office", like if our office were an equivalent of what happens in the entire world, and in the peace of mind of the little cave called the "If I close my eyes, the dinosaur will disappear" mentality,
Really. I think that's tragic.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Alfonso Sexto on 10th November 2015 9:07am

4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Curt Sampson Sofware Developer 2 years ago
You know full well that free speech doesn't include libel.
Actually, no, I'm not clear that the "free speech" advocates agree with this. Many of them are effectively engaging in defamation to some degree or other, and are arguably even showing a reckless disregard for the truth. Neglecting to note that UN committes or whatever have retracted opinions that the "free speech" advocates are trumpeting as the invasion of evil, and statements such as 'Zoey's appearance at the UN called exactly for...governments and ISPs monitoring users and websites who let people say "you suck"' are, at the least, inaccurate, even if they might not fully meet some jurisdictions legal standards for defamation.
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Luke Giddings Programmer, Supermassive Games2 years ago
Tom, your a couple of days late.
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Rashad Foux Character Artist, Hi-Rez Studios, Inc.2 years ago
@Robert:
It's kind of disturbing how these discussions about women being harassed en-masse by strangers uniformly devolve into discussions about free speech.
As if there's some kind of justification for hundreds of men to send threatening, rape related messages to a woman for voicing her opinion (or in the case of Zoe Q, both dating someone and existing).

No one is going to go to jail for saying "you suck" over the internet. Ever.
But if you, or you encourage hundreds of guys, to send rape and/or death threats to a woman, post their personal information and/or address, and say "I'm coming to get you at X o'clock" the overwhelming response shouldn't be "PC police crying about their hurt feeling's need to shut up and deal with it."
It should be "You made a direct threat to this person, posted it with information verifying their location or that of their loved ones, and did so with the intent to threaten, silence, or harm them."

The real "Freedom of Speech" threat comes from the angry mob shouting at women they disagree with. And they're not shouting "You suck!"
They're shouting "SHUT UP OR WE'LL HURT YOU!"
13Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Curt Sampson Sofware Developer 2 years ago
Just because a group retracts something doesn't mean it's detractors don't have a right to continue to bring it up.
You certainly have a right to continue bringing it up, if it's relevant to something (though I can't imagine what it is relevant to), but if you are going to argue honestly, you need to ensure when you do bring it up that you make it clear that the position you're discussing is not that of your opponents (at least, not those who exist outside of your head, anyway). People are allowed to clarify and even change their arguments, and you should accept that, nay, be grateful for it.
They only retracted it because they pushed too far THIS time but that will still be their intention for the future.
If you want to convince people that free speech is worth preserving, I suggest you use it for a purpose other than hauling out unsubstantiated statements that are partially or completely incorrect for the apparent purpose of inciting drama. Your passion for demonizing your enemy and bringing heat rather than light to the argument is a clear example of free speech with not just no social value whatsoever, but even negative social value.

Rashad made an incredibly good point, I think. You can talk about "free speech" all you like, but just as my freedom to swing my fist ends where your face starts, no freedom, speech included, is absolute, and if you're not discussing how we can fix the harassment problem with minimal impact on free speech, you're basically part of the problem yourself.

And the irony of this all is, while you're advocating consideration of "free speech" over all other concerns, you're using this position to try to shut down discussion of the harassment issue.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Curt Sampson on 11th November 2015 12:14am

2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Robert Mac-Donald Game Designer, Lethe Games2 years ago
No one is going to go to jail for saying "you suck" over the internet. Ever.
"Man Faces 6 Months in Jail For Disagreeing With Feminists on Twitter"
https://www.opposingviews.com/i/world/canadian-man-trial-after-tweeting-about-feminists-could-face-jail-video

The original video where a woman reported this, was pulled from youtube due to copyright claims (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfKP_cEBt1U&feature=youtu.be)

According to some new sources, this man was also prohibited from using the internet at all until his trial was complete. He never said anything harmful, nor sexual, nor violent.

Now, either the news are lying to us, or you people are terribly oblivious to what is going on in the world right now. Do you want people to not go to jail for saying "you suck" on the internet? Then you are already behind schedule to start voicing your criticism over that, and to start calling out on people that are trying to diminish our freedom of expression. Universities are already going crazy with trigger warnings and safe spaces, the next logical step is for the future generation to try and shape the internet after that same model.
6Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Alfonso Sexto Lead Tester, Ubisoft Germany2 years ago
@Robert:
"Man Faces 6 Months in Jail For Disagreeing With Feminists on Twitter"
How about a proper source instead of "opposingviews"?
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-the-twitter-trial-of-gregory-elliott-is-becoming-much-like-twitter-itself-shrill-and-uber-sensitive

Well, first of all, that news article is from 2014. Second: Is it really fair to put the particular case of 2 over.sensitive persons taking it to far as a general rule of freedom of speech? This works more as an example of how Twitter can sometimes be the biggest intellectual wasteland on the internet.
Now, either the news are lying to us, or you people are terribly oblivious to what is going on in the world right now
Let me point that you have picked up this particular case, one that if it weren't ridiculous it would be closer to a harassment case (for lasting for 2 years) to use it as an example of how "a simple "you suck" can get you in jail". No, it is not, and I believe that taking a particular case as that one and reducing it to that is also quite dangerous.

And please, can we get over about the fact that insults and disrespect are NOT covered by freedom of expression? thanks.
7Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Klaus Preisinger Freelance Writing 2 years ago
There is a distinct line, between using freedom of speech to formulate a coherent thought that goes against established reason while enjoying the protection of society as a whole and abusing the right of free speech to terrorize whoever is not of your opinion with petty threats and insults. Western societies should not be judged by the opinions you find there, but by their attempt that words are always responded to by more words, with either tolerance of the other, or reasonable decisions being at the end of every discussion; not violence, not subjugation in anybody's name. To that end, the gamergate discussion fails the idea of free speech it tries to hide behind.

I ask: Which questions were raised by gamergate? Have they been addressed? Has any type of progress come out of it? Or was it just populism for its own sake? Does the memoir undertake any attempts to describe any of the problems which lead to people being unsatisfied with game journalism? Or does the memoir just try to paint one side as the victim, the other side as the culprit, with as much pathos and populism in between?
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Robert Mac-Donald Game Designer, Lethe Games2 years ago
insults and disrespect are NOT covered by freedom of expression
So you agree with Russians when they passed a law forbidding people to make "memes" out of Putin?

Is making a game that criticizes and insults a political or historical person, perhaps with humor, something we should give Jack Thompson a call so he can deal with that game?
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Alfonso Sexto Lead Tester, Ubisoft Germany2 years ago
@Robert
Yes, sure, I agree with that. I also agree with China sending to Jail those people who ask for a democracy and I want the USSR to take half of Germany again. Why not?

I see where this is going and I'm not going to waste time on cyclic conversations that most likely will require me to deny things that I never said but you, somehow, put together in your head.

There is a difference between "Freedom of speech" and "penalizing insults". I'll just leave it at that and let you believe whatever you like the most.

Good day.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Alfonso Sexto on 12th November 2015 8:00am

6Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.