Following outcry, the designer of an online Flash game based on the 2006 Dawson College shooting recently removed his creation from popular website Newgrounds.
The game drew condemnation from people who said it made light of the tragedy. But the issue has opened the door for debate on the subjects of free speech, censorship, and where artists and game designers should draw the line.
Given the game’s offensive content it seems justified to call for its removal, but it should be known that the creator chose to take the game down. The creator had no legal obligation to take the game down, as it did not violate the Criminal Code.
This is an unpleasant thought for many, but freedom of expression is designed in large part to protect those works the majority finds offensive, thus preventing censorship.
Herein lies an opportunity: by allowing the game to stay active online, we create a forum for debate.
Rather than succumbing to an emotional, knee-jerk reaction, we can argue why a particular work is offensive. By exposing ourselves to different opinions, each drawing on different experiences — e.g. those connected with the shooting, those not — we are able to collectively determine where the line between good and bad taste should be drawn.
As citizens, we have a duty to let others express themselves, but we can also use this opportunity to debate this game on its own merits. By doing this, we can re-evaluate what society considers offensive.