Interesting. I hadn't even heard about this but i'm glad I have now. I think regardless of the intent of the people making the game that censorship for the sake of public outcry is usually a pretty bad move. It just leads to the public being more comfortable with getting up in arms over smaller and smaller infractions of their personal comfort because they know google will fold like a lawn chair at the first sign of complaint.

Don't make the mistake of assuming this is free speech (which, as you point out, doesn't apply to non-government entities) vs. laissez-faire. When Apple removes an App in response to customer feedback, they're playing the CYA game, the free market in action. It's their prerogative to pick and choose whatever content they want on their platform, just as the Android app shop is free to do the same. You pointed this out, but it's worth repeating--it's not an issue of censorship.

Hmmm, tough issue. I'd kind of like to see this yanked if only to make games look a little better. I'd like to see games tackle controversial issues, but when they put something out that clearly isn't commenting on it at all and then just yell "IT'S JUST A VIDEO GAME" a lot, it makes all video games look bad. Still, maybe stuff like this needs to be allowed to happen so that other developers who would treat it more sensitively will see that it can be done.

Just a note: this game *was* pulled-- http://www.destructoid.com/dog-fighting-game-dog-wars-pulled-from-android-market-199740.phtml

And it was probably a smart move. In the end, and for better or worse, business comes before socio-political statements, and I don't see the monetary benefits to retaining a pugnacious game like this. Courting controversy to spur business (i.e. "there's no such thing as bad press") only works when one side appreciates the work in question--for example, The Passion of the Christ. But when it's merely a free-speech issue (is there anyone, or at least a sizeable majority, who'd defend Dog Wars on the basis of its content alone?), business wins out.

Can we all collectively agree to stop using the "it's just a video game" defense? Anyone who levels this argument is just holding the whole medium back. Quite frankly, you're an embarassment.

My question would be: What's the difference between this and Pokemon? The decision of "cencorship" in regards to content like this seems to be on the basis of morality, however there are plenty of other things on the market that are just as questionable.

@ryan The problem is that the people wishing for it to be censored read intent into the game's content. They think that a person making a game about dog fighting must support dog fighting or want to glorify it. Don't know if that's the case here or not (may very well be, for all I know) but you can read ill intent into anything if you want to hard enough.

what i'm really saying is, while I might understand why they pulled this particular game at this particular time, deciding to pull games for objectionable content is a slippery slope and you can't just do it any time you get some static or you'll piss off as many people as you satisfy.

I think you summed it up quite nicesly, Jeffrey.

Thanks for the comments, everybody!

@Jason According to the developer (Twitter @dogwarsapp), they pulled it to update it. Don't know why that's necessary, but it was running terribly on my phone. I haven't seen any comment from Google on this matter.

Also, free speech is a principle I think should be universal, but which only governments (and government-funded institutions) should be legally held to. Google should be free to cover their arses, but suppressing what they (or a large group of petitioners) find unacceptable is still censorship.

@Rob @Alex 2 It's "just" a video game is dismissive and implies games are incapable of decrying animal cruelty (not that it was in this case).

@Alex We can have a healthy discussion about free speech as a universal principle, but a non-government entity pulling something in response to consumer pressure is not considered censorship. Nor, in my opinion, should corporations be obligated to tolerate all forms of speech if they feel it conflicts with their bottom line.

@Jason By that definition, films and games aren't censored in Britain -- the BBFC, while non-governmental, is a censorship board. (C used to stand for censors, now classification.) Google are an organisation with the power to remove content deemed objectionable. That would be censorship.

And I'm not saying they should be obliged to allow free speech either, just that it would be right.

@Alex First of all, laws in Britain are not identical to America, but that's beside the point.

The BBFC is no different from the MPAA, whose function it is to rate and classify films. They aren't, for example, restricting free speech (which is not a right outside the public square) or banning books. These are both self-regulatory agencies--it's akin to the ESRB vs. the government's constant threat to step in. Both organizations might "demand" cuts in order to attain a specific rating, and people might consider that censorship, but at least in the case of the MPAA, it doesn't have the force of law. If the producers of a film acquiesce to cuts in order to attain a specific rating, that is not censorship. I can't say for certain with the BBFC, but regarding the MPAA, enforcement of the ratings is voluntary. No theater, for example, is getting fined by the government for letting kids into R-rated films.

IMHO, the terms "censorship" and "free speech" are used far too loosely (even by self-regulatory agencies who later change their title).

And it's back as "KG Dogfighting".

@Jason Even if they couldn't enforce the changes they make to films, film boards are at least making self-censorship the only viable option for a film distributor. And even without the force of law, Google have the power to remove objectionable content from the Market and from people's phones. Changing the actor of an action doesn't change the word for that action.

@Jason I've got to agree with Alex here. While these self-regulating agencies don't have the force of law, and therefore, don't technically censor per se, the changes they "suggest" leave film and game makers with little recourse. If you haven't seen "This Film is Not Yet Rated," I highly suggest you do as it gives a great idea of just how draconian these regulators can be.

I don't believe the game should be pulled. I think the game's concept is appaling and tasteless, but without strictly violating any of Google's rules, I would be extremely worried if Google were to pull it. Like Jeffrey mentioned, censorship is a slippery slope. If Google caves to pressure in this situation, what's to say they wouldn't again and again (on things much less objectionable than this?) While the Pokemon comparison Ryan makes seems silly on its surface, if Google were to believe they had such freedom as to cesor whatever they wanted without consequence, I don't see what would stop them from pulling our Pocket Monsters right out from under us.

I can really only speak to U.S. government, but when it comes to free speech, I think they have a model that works amazingly well. It's a model businesses don't have to follow, but when they do, as a creative person, I'm gracious they are looking out for my best interests and will reward them with my dollars.