Daily Archives: July 21, 2022

Kenneth Williams July 17, 2022 11:27 am

Saints Row is coming back in 2022, but censorship could mean the disappearance of some of the franchises most famous features.

When Grand Theft Auto reimagined itself as a gritty and more realistic simulation in GTA IV, rival urban sandbox Saints Row took the opportunity to become the wacky and wild alternative. Starting from the third game onwards, the series incorporated more adult humor and ridiculous scenarios into the mix. While the 2022 Saints Row reboot will keep most of the franchises whimsical touches intact, some elements could be on the chopping block for foreign releases.

Saints Row wasnt alone in featuring adult humor and situations. But Saints Rows unique take was focused more on shock factor. The Third quickly gained online notoriety after the reveal of a giant adult toy being used as a melee weapon. In fact, the weapon is so iconic that its return in the reboot has already been confirmed.

But the dildo bat wont necessarily be present in every release of the game. In 2022, more countries that ever have censorship laws that could affect the new Saints Row. In fact, the game may not even be released in some regions due to its potentially obscene content. Heres a brief history of how previous games have been censored and what it means for the reboot.

While adult humor and a certain purple weapon are confirmed for inclusion, Saints Row 2022 will most likely have censorship in some countries, and it wont have all of the same adult themes as did previous iterations of the series.

The game will still release in most countries. Adult content from Saints Row The Third was censored or replaced in Germany, Japan, and some other countries that oppose sexual humor in video games. The Third was even outright banned in the United Arab Emirates. The constant presence of drugs and alcohol may have contributed as well, in some instances.

For countries where Saints Row was released with censorship, the Japanese version used a different model for adult toy weapons. It also prevented the player from fully undressing. The German version took a more philosophical approach, removing money drops and the ability to be used as a human shield from civilians.

For gamers in countries that limit media, Saints Row should still release with notable changes. As for the main release, it will still have much of the adult humor with more modern sensibilities. The game will probably not feature many jokes about race or gender, and it looks as though some elements of sexuality have been reduced. Beating people to death with a giant dildo is still on the table, though.

Related Articles

Kenneth Williams July 5, 2022 7:27 am

Kenneth Williams June 24, 2022 6:01 pm

Christian Vejvad July 1, 2021 2:42 pm

Lee Jones February 4, 2022 3:47 pm

Fariha Bhatti June 3, 2022 9:23 am

Nick Johnson April 26, 2020 3:19 pm

Excerpt from:
Will Saints Row 2022 have censorship? Here's what we know - Win.gg

A comedians fortunes could change overnight with a spot on NBCs The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson.

Even better? If Carson summoned the comic over to his iconic couch.

Late-night TV no longer transforms a comedians career in the same way. Now, its snagging a Netflix comedy special or streaming deal, with a few stars landing talk shows to call their own.

Andrew Schulz suggests that era may be waning, too, at least for stand-ups who wont play by the woke rules.

Schulz, the freewheeling comic known for hilarious YouTube videos and podcasts like Flagrant, is part of the new comedy revolution. Its not exactly by choice, but he suspects its the best path forward for stand-ups who loathe censorship.

Call it DIY Show Business.

RELATED: How Big Tech Is Crushing Conservative Comedy (UPDATED)

Schulz opened up to Megyn Kelly about his new comedy special, Infamous, and why he decided to share the special independently. He originally teamed with an unnamed streaming outlet but the platform demanded he remove select jokes.

He refused, deciding to buy back the special and produce it independently. So far, so good, according to TMZ, but it remains to be seen if hell get a return on his sizable investment.

Im not gonna edit my jokes anymore because I built my career without the streamers and I was able to build this career doing the jokes the exact way I wanted to I amassed this following and was able to tour around the world, he told Kelly.

I never felt like I needed the streamer the people validate me more than anything, he added.

His solo venture isnt the first attempt at avoiding comedy gatekeepers. Other stars like Nick Di Paolo, Jim Breuer, Louis C.K. and Steve Mudflap McGrew have tried that DIY approach.

The big test? Can comedians without that streamer cash and cachet?

If we prove you can make more money, or as much money doing it on your own than doing it with a streamer, then theres no point to go with a streamer and get notes, Schulz said. How do you make comedy the most pure?

Kelly agreed, noting how her career blossomed after NBC unceremoniously fired her on dubious charges. She went rogue, creating a powerful podcast and teaming with SiriusXM while retaining full control of the content.

I can work around the system where Im beholden to no one and my product will rise or fail entirely on its own merit, Kelly said of Schulzs approach, one that mirrors her own.

The future is ownership, not censorship, Schulz said. The companies that get that are starting to succeed. The creators who get that are succeeding.

RELATED: Tyler Fischer Scored By Blazing His Own Path

Earlier in the chat, Schulz broke down why the culture is suddenly so sensitive to edgy jokes. During the 1980s and 90s comedians like Howard Stern, Sam Kinison and Andrew Dice Clay challenged the status quo with gags that many found offensive.

They faced little punishment for telling them, though. Thats no longer the case, and Schulz thinks he knows why.

[Jokes] arent true, but the feelings are true. We have these feelings that are messed up thats whats relatable about jokes, he said. Even the old Borscht Belt comics, the Take my wife, please [material]. You dont really want someone to take your wife, but sometimes you have this feeling where, yeah, if somebody took herand thats funny to you.

How can this paradox exist within me? Thats humor.

Schulz credits Jon Stewart of The Daily Show fame for the shift.

He set an expectation for comedy to be true. And a whole bunch of kids grew up watching it, going, oh, thats what comedy is supposed to be, its supposed to be true, to speak truth to power.'

He also explained why the new wave of progressive humor often is reduced to clapter, not laughs.

Victimless comedy doesnt even exist, thats why its so hard to be funny and woke because nobodys a victim, then what are we gonna make fun of? he said.

Original post:
Andrew Schulz: 'The Future is Ownership, Not Censorship' - Hollywood in Toto

Hong Kongs sedition offences should not be used to impose political censorship, a defence counsel has told a local court at the trial of five speech therapists who allegedly incited hatred against the authorities by printing storybooks about sheep and wolves.

District Judge Kwok Wai-kin on Wednesday heard closing arguments by lawyers defending Lorie Lai, Melody Yeung, Sidney Ng, Samuel Chan and Fong Tsz-ho, whopleaded not guiltyto conspiring to print, publish, distribute and display three books between June 2020 and July 2021 with seditious intention. The group were executive committee members of theGeneral Union of Hong Kong Speech Therapists at the time.

The defence argued that the childrens publications alleged to be indoctrinating readers with separatism and inciting anti-China sentiment had no seditious intention. Theywere only printed to recount what happened in Hong Kong, including the2019 extradition bill protests, the detention of 12 Hong Kong fugitives by mainland Chinese authorities and a strike staged by local medics at the start of the Covid-19 outbreak.

Representing Yeung, the unions external vice-chief, Senior Counsel Robert Pang said the books provided a narrative from one particular point of view, and there could be many other points of view. Barrister Anson Wong, on the other hand, said the prosecution used an erroneous approach to interpret the books from a radical perspective. He said the messages conveyed were in fact open-ended.

The whole prosecution case on the alleged seditious nature of the relevant publications is built on its assumptions of what an extremely radical or cynical reader as opposed to an ordinary reasonable one would perceive from [the books],said Wong, who represented the unions secretary Sidney Ng.

Similar arguments were made by barrister Peter Wong on behalf of Lorie Lai, the unions chairwoman. The lawyer said people with different backgrounds might form different subjective interpretations, and it was impossible to draw a blanket conclusion that all readers would form the same interpretation.

Wong also argued thatthe criticism of government made in the storybooks allowed people to vent their grievances. He said that, in society, people could hold and express dissenting views without attracting draconian criminal liabilities, and sedition offences should not be inappropriately used to impose political censorship.

[Those opinions] may be both unpopular and unreasonable. But such expressions should not be labelled or stigmatised as criminal with exorbitant legal consequences simply because they involve dissent and political opposition to the government and authority,he said.

The publications were thought to be a useful and effective tool to explain the political turmoil in Hong Kong to young children, Peter Wong quoted defendants Lai and Yeung as telling online radio station D100 in March last year. The pair said the books could help young readers develop critical thinking, he added.

The sedition offences covered in the colonial-era Crimes Ordinance could land thefive defendantsup totwo years in prison if convicted.It is different from the Beijing-enacted national security law that came into force on June 30, 2020, which targets secession, subversion, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist activities.

Lead prosecutor Laura Ng earlier compared sedition to treason, citing a UK case more than a century old to say that it was a crime against society. She also said it could incite people to an insurrection, a rebellion or even a civil war.

Defence counsels told the court on Wednesday that the recently resurrected sedition law had wide parameters and lacked clarity, which created the potential for abuse or misuse to prosecute dissenting voices. Similar legislation was abolished or reformed in numerous jurisdictions, they said.

Counsel Anson Wong said that the ambit of seditious intention was extremely wide and could cover political criticism. Without an incitement of violence or insurrection against the authorities, the suppression of speech would amount to imposing interference more than is necessary on freedom of expression, he said.

To say the least, such provisions could have a chilling effect on speech and writing,Wong said quoting the New Zealand Law Commission.

Judge Kwok challenged Pangs submissionthat people had the right to tell different narratives. He grilled the lawyer on whether the content of the storybooks was opinion or a representation of facts, and whetherspeech therapists had to distinguish one from another.

After examining numerous examples including the prevalence of security cameras in mainland China, Pang argued that, if people were not allowed to present an alternative narrative, the truth may be hidden.

The case was adjourned to July 30 for the court to hear remaining submissions from Samuel Chan and Fong Tsz-hos lawyers.

Support HKFP |Code of Ethics |Error/typo? |Contact Us | Newsletter |Transparency & Annual Report

See the article here:
Hong Kong's sedition offences should not be used to impose 'political censorship,' lawyer argues at speech therapists trial - Hong Kong Free Press

Extraordinary scenes in China after a poem referencing the fat heads and big ears of an insect was censored for fear of offending President Xi Jinping.

Xuan Kejiong, a reporter who works for the Shanghai Media Group, shared his ode to cicadas on Weibo - a social media site where he has a staggering 1.6million followers.

Inspired by his experiences of running in the summer heat, the poet moaned of insects crawling out of the dark but apparently the reference to fat heads and big ears could be misconstrued and thus he was forced to remove the piece of work.

Sign up to our free Indy100 weekly newsletter

The poem immediately went viral but within half an hour the Shanghai Media Group was receiving constant inquiries relating to what exactly Kejiong meant by his words. They got their man to remove the offending poem and put out a statement which read:

The Shanghai Media Group has solemnly criticised the reporter Xuan Kejiong, who realises his mistake... his personal reflections could be easily subject to creative association by others.

It is an extraordinary state of affairs when people can find fault and take offence to subtext that isnt even there. We shouldnt be surprised, however, since this is not the first time the President has displayed remarkably thin skin regarding his appearance.

In one of the most incredible examples of the Streisand effect in history, the 2018 Christopher Robin film was banned in China because of widespread comparisons between President Xi Jinping and Winnie the Pooh. With any luck this latest act of censorship will have a similar impact and people will talk of little else in the coming days.

Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.

See the rest here:
China censors 'fat head and big ears' poem over fears it was about the president - indy100