The Slamdance Film Festival is a place for filmmakers to attempt to make a name for themselves. The Festival also hosts the Slamdance Guerilla Gamemakers Contest, which allows individuals to create independent games to be viewed and judged. Recently, however, an independent game was created by developer Danny Ledonne to simulate the events of the Columbine Tragedy. Titled Super Columbine Masacre RPG!, the game is an RPG from the viewpoint of the shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Understandably, many people find this idea to be horrifying and offensive and this issue has caused many to question the morality of game development.

D'Marcus Beatty, Co-Site Director

Freedom of speech has always been a double edged sword. On one hand, it gives us to ability to express ourselves as creatively as we please, broaching any subject we desire, and conveying our thoughts, no matter how esoteric, to the world (or immediate audience) at large. However, freedom of speech also requires that we acknowledge that liberty in others, so that they can express themselves, no matter how offensive or distasteful we may find their craft.

The first time that I played Grand Theft Auto III, I was fascinated by the game's copious use of four letter words. I had honestly never expected swearing to make its way into video games so openly, and I remember that it created an unprecedented and immersive experience. The characters that would talk that way in real life did talk that way, so it made the game feel "true" to life. The cutscenes had true acting with realistic dialogue, not just people reading lines. However, once GTA pushed that envelope, other developers decided to copy the simplest element of Rockstar's formula can came up with the idea that swearing just for the sake of swearing would sell their games. Suddenly, there were games everywhere that cursed or had violence for no reason. It wasn't artistic or realistic or even fun, just excessive and exploitative.

Violence, sex, swearing, and tragedy are all unavoidable facets of human existence. Peppered realistically in any game, these elements can be useful in crafting a realistic, immersive experience. However, when use gratuitously, these things become juvenile and jarring, even offensive. (See BMXXX and The Guy Game)

This is the price that we pay for the free speech. This right isn't always used with taste and tact. However, as an entity, gamers can control this by not wastefully spending their money on games that continue this trend. However, in the case of Super Columbine Massacre RPG, which is an indie game, I believe protesting the game would give it more attention than it deserves. If we, as a gaming community, don't support these games in any way, either by purchasing it, lauding it, or lambasting it to create word of mouth infamy, then these games will have no other choice than to wither away. Until, of course, the next game appears, but that is the price of freedom.

Maria Montoro, Co-Site Director

As one of not so many female gamers, I feel that I don't ever need to play violent games to fulfill my gaming needs, just like I don't enjoy movies based on violence and human brutality. However, I represent a small percentage of the gaming population (although it's growing) and I understand that the male audience finds entertainment in violent games like Rockstar's GTA or recent titles like "The Godfather" or "Scarface." But, didn't so many people love the movies as well? What's the difference? In a movie you watch the actor causing damage and in a game you are part of the action. But isn't it all fictional anyways? The CEA (Consumer Electronics Association) concluded in their last study that roughly one third of adult gamers spend ten hours of more per week playing console or PC games, compared to just 11% of teens. This means that there should be a broad variety of games for all audiences, just like there are movies for all audiences. That's the purpose of the ESRB Rating, to let gamers (and their parents) know what's suitable for different age groups.

In my opinion, it's the parents' sole responsibility to provide non-violent games to their kids and, believe me, there's plenty of them. No one needs a "moral-police" to decide what can or cannot be published. Censorship has never been good and it never will. If someone is scared of seeing their kid play "Grand Theft Auto," they better exercise their parental role and stop complaining.

As for the Super Columbine Massacre RPG, I think it's a horrendous idea and it probably should have never been made. However, who are we to decide that the game needs to be censored? Luckily, it's only on the Internet, and there are plenty of bad things out there anyways. A warning on that page that reminds people about the "sensitive" content is all that should be done and people that don't want to be part of it shouldn't even download it. Kids won't be in danger of playing that kind of game and misinterpreting the moral of the story as long as their parents do a good job watching their internet and TV consumption. Giving kids free access to the Internet is like buying them tickets for a horror movie: wrong.

Jonathan Marx, Freelance Writer

Freedom of speech and expression are fundamental principles of the American identity. Being able to express our thoughts and proffer ideas has allowed our society to evolve in fantastic ways. Women's suffrage and civil rights, for a long time, were taboo topics that ran counter to mainstream beliefs. Fortunately, debate was allowed to flourish, and we have become a far better nation for it. No longer are we shackled to archaic notions of discrimination. There can be no doubt that the censorship of ideas, no matter how foreign, must be allowed to be voiced. As free citizens, we also have the ability to choose not to listen, or even to attempt to thwart such ideas. These freedoms, working in concert, have the effect over time of foiling fringe influence and strengthening progressive, populist thought.

Applying this logic to the video game industry, it is apparent that no matter how dastardly or menacing a video game may seem, freedom of expression must be upheld. Censorship of development will only end up betraying our core beliefs. A solid rating system and its subsequent enforcement, along with the power of reputation will keep fringe developers in check. Games that simulate the Columbine shootings are utterly tasteless, and devoid of any redeeming factors, however, their development should not be censored. These games will never gain traction in popular culture, and are powerless to influence any significant portion of American youth.

Games that have captured the popular imagination, like Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto series, are far more sinister. These games have had tremendous distribution and can be found in the hands of youngsters throughout the nation. This is a failure of both parental guidance and rating enforcement. Unfortunately, the former is the true culprit and the gaming industry cannot be held liable for the bad decisions, or the non-decisions, made by parents. Perhaps the Ad Council, the federal government, and the gaming industry should spend money to raise awareness of the rating system. Parents need to know that the games their children play are at least as influential as the movies they watch, or the music to which they listen. Ultimately, the gaming industry is responsible for providing the tools to make good decisions. The industry is not, however, responsible for censoring game content. The outright abolition of unsavory titles is not only choice limiting and bad for business, but quite frankly, un-American.

Amanda L. Kondolojy, Freelance Writer

Freedom of speech. One of the basic tenets of the American constitution and an integral part of democracies around the world. A right that is so central to the modern world and the culture of freedom, that it is confidently exercised unabashedly by millions of people every day. But when does freedom of speech become harmful? Where do you draw the line between harmful speech and freedom of expression? When can freedom of speech undermine the very ideals it's supposed to promote?

These aren't easy questions. However, they're important questions to consider when looking at the gaming industry. Although not articulated specifically, games are protected under the American First Amendment as a form of speech that cannot be tampered with by the federal government. Taking that as a given, is it the responsibility of game-makers and consumers alike to not sully the game industry with titles that push this right to the limit?

With the release of titles like Super Columbine Massacre RPG, which simulates the Columbine school shootings, these rights are being pushed, and it's gamers that could take the hit for this. Promoting violence in any setting is unacceptable to most American people. You can slap warnings on anything you like; it doesn't change the fact that games like these will inevitably fall into the hands of impressionable children. And a child simulating the act of killing other children is not something anyone should feel good about promoting.

Games like those in the Grand Theft Auto series are a little different because they feature adults in adult situations. This game features a child in a situation no child should ever have to be in. It replicates the fear and violence that is experienced by those who've had to endure the horror of school shootings. What about those who have lost friends and loved ones to school shootings? Should we sell something that replicates the situations in which they lost people who were important to them?

Of course, this same argument can be applied to battle-simulation games. But again, look at the age of the people performing the action in the game. You won't see an 11 year old German shooting a 13 year old American. In a World War II simulation, the combatants are adults. The type of message of a game that features violence involving children is horrific. When Bully came out last year, some of the same concerns were uttered that I'm voicing now. However, that game did not involve school shootings, as some had thought it might have, and was actually pretty tame fare from the Rockstar label.

I can definitely say that I'm a huge fan of the First Amendment, and I strongly believe (like most people) that you should be able to say whatever you want without fear of censorship or persecution. But some things should just not be said. I can honestly say without fear or trepidation that I believe this game has no right to exist. School shootings are horrific and heart-breaking experiences, and do not make acceptable fare for anyone.