May 21, 2007 12:52 PM PDT
Perspective: 'V-Tech Massacre' pits free speech against common decency
See all Perspectives
A young Australian man has created V-Tech Massacre, a video game in which players re-create Cho Seung-hui's killing spree at Virginia Tech. When detractors asked that it be removed from its host site, a portal for homemade games, Ryan Lambourn said he'd be happy to comply, but only if he were paid a certain sum of cash. For an extra grand, he'd publicly apologize.
This looks to many like a young man's awkward attempt to garner attention through destructive behavior. He says he did it as a joke. Maybe that's a phase a lot of young people go through. Maybe making fun of death is one way to get busy living. Maybe he's never lost anyone close to him and doesn't understand what other people are going through. But in refusing even to acknowledge the depth of the pain experienced by so many after the Virginia Tech assault, Lambourn is running roughshod over a community's profound suffering. And The Sydney Morning Herald reported last week that he declares sympathy with the shooter. (His blog has been inactivated, so his remarks are not solidly confirmed.)
Should the game stay live? The question raises obvious questions about free speech and individual morality. As far as free speech principles are concerned, the host site and the game's maker are within their rights to publish the piece, whether as a grim joke, a genuine call to arms, or a stance for freedom of speech. But as far as individual morality is concerned, let the outcry serve as a plea for this young man to take careful stock of his values and how he wants to change society for the better without knowingly harming others.
We can either see the game and Lambourn's reluctance to apologize to the bereaved as: (a) a tribute to the killer; (b) a cry for revolution; (c) a cry for help; or (d) all of the above. Have we left anything out? Oh, yes: (e) a disturbing attempt to get attention and money.
Perhaps the reward is worth the price to him: people will be watching him very closely now, but not to celebrate his creativity. They'll be determining whether he's simply a cavalier young person blithely making light of tragedy and social ills, or a genuine menace to himself and others.
Some of the most frequently recurring words and phrases used in online discussions about Lambourn's game include: "reprehensible," "poor taste," "poor game," "attention whore," and on the sympathetic side, "we're praying for you."
Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should, as Kierkegaard would say.
In a follow-up piece, The Sydney Morning Herald further reported that Lambourn "empathized with the killer and that he, like Cho, had been a victim of abuse and bullying" at the numerous schools he attended in his younger years.
"What (Cho) did was caused by something," he said. (It's unclear whether he spoke with the Herald or these remarks were on his personal Web site.) "From what I do know about him, from his plays, from what he did to prepare for (the killings), he's very human, fragile."
Here's the clincher: as an alleged victim of abuses, maybe Lambourn is seeking retribution, attention or healing. But what if he could turn his creative effort toward improving whatever he sees as the root causes of the shootings without harming others? At a minimum, he could face up to those suffering from the tragedy and say, "I know you suffer a tremendous loss, but I'm leaving my game up in the name of free speech and self-expression." Instead, he thus far has refused to "touch the subject" and will not comment on the situation of the bereaved.
Newgrounds, the game's host site, has a valid point in refusing to take the game down. It claims images in the news coverage of the event were far more harmful than those in the game. But the problem isn't that the game is still live. The problem isn't even that its creator is looking to make a buck off his work. The real problem is Lambourn's refusal to admit that he's profiting--with attention, if not cash--from others' tragedy.
Biography
Emily Shurr is a general-assignment news producer for CNET News.com.
See more CNET content tagged:
tragedy, speech, attention, video game, video
All that said, I find this article interesting in its tone, which is obviously condemning, and doesn't seem to even pretend to be objective. Where was this kind of writing with regards to the published cartoon photos of Muhammad? It seems when something is culturally relevant, we treat it with far more respect than things we have no ties to.
Personally, I believe this issue with the game should be treated as was the stories about the European cartoons, more objectively, and with an eye on free speech. If we condemn the game, and its author's statements, due to its unpopularity, then we should have done the same regarding the insensitivity of the Muhammad cartoons.
tasteless - yes!, Immoral - maybe, His right - absolutely!
If it bothers the complainers so much
pony up or shut up. The author gave you the solution!!
Apparently, some American pundits now seem to believe they they have an absolute right not to be offended. You don't.
Whatever it is that bothers you: political speech, Prince albums, South Park, Grand Theft Auto, whatever... you do have one right: the right to turn it off and let other adults browse the marketplace of ideas without offering your petty judgment.
Telling other people how to feel and think may make Mommy feel better, but it will do nothing to bring back the lives that were lost at Virginia Tech, nor will it increase the understanding or empathy you so wish us to have for the victims.
Given that "morality" is now - by general agreement and practice - a meaningless term, of what benefit is this article? A long rant to emphasize the point you could have made in two sentences: the guy's not someone you'd want to invite to dinner.
It is utterly meaningless to celebrate this individual's right to free speech and yet draw no moral conclusions about the content of his expression. His right to free speech within a Western representative society is largely a given. But if we judge all speech to be no more or no less valid than any other, no more or less worthy of emulation or acceptance, what is the value of free speech?
The right to free speech was conceived as a bulwark of moral expression, not some thin framework across which meaningless babble or disturbed vitriol would be stretched and agnostically deemed equal to thoughtful, reflective advocacy.
Bottom line: the "creative expression" of this individual is disturbed and reprehensible. It is unworthy of praise or esteem. And it is proper and responsible to say so without dithering or reservation.
But committing further violence whether in the form of the horrific shootings, or by creating a game which glorifies them, won't change anything.
The fundamental question is: how important is it to feel better than someone else? Those who carry this to an extreme feel justified in murdering people who have "wronged" them.
Is that illusion worth killing and dying for?
Are you writing this story for free? Are you paid by CNet? Do you admit you're profiting from others' tragedy?
- Well put
- by leew666 April 21, 2008 7:55 PM PDT
- Well put Emily. I'm afraid it's people like this cat that many use to judge computer games as a whole. I have no clue as to his profession, but I can only hope that this notoriety doesn't land him a job with any studio.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(12 Comments)This is not to say that games companies are without sin. As a developer myself, I have had just about enough of mindless violent content. I am all for playing an adult title, however I would like a little variety. But what I'd really like to see is some social responsibility from a multi billion dollar industry that particularly markets so strongly to children and teens...