In debates concerning videogames and the freedom of expression, two lines of argumentation have traditionally been put forward: That games express ideas and for this reason are entitled to the same protection as other expressive media or that their interactive nature makes them different in how they reflect the world compared to other media. This paper adds nuance to this discussion through two arguments. First, we argue that videogames cannot be understood as mainly expressive or interactive, but that these characteristics must be understood in tandem if we are to understand the role of videogames in culture and society, connected by the player. Second, we argue that play and playfulness are ignored in debates about videogames and the freedom of expression, and that attention towards the playful aspects offers a better view of how videogames differ from other media and what this means for the status of expressions in videogames.
ApterM. J. (2007). Reversal theory: The dynamics of motivation, emotion and personality (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
4.
BatesonG. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BicchieriC. (2017). Norms in the wild: How to diagnose, measure, and change social norms (Kindle ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
BogostI. (2007). Persuasive games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
BorchardK. (2015). Super Columbine Massacre RPG! and grand theft autoethnography. Cultural Studies – Critical Methodologies, 15(6), 446–454. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532708615614018
ElsonM.,FergusonC. J. (2014). Twenty-five years of research on violence in digital games and aggression. Empirical evidence, perspectives, and a debate gone astray. European Psychologist, 19(1), 33–46. https://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000147
11.
FeinbergJ. (1985). Offense to others: The moral limits of the criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
FoxJ.,TangW. Y. (2017). Sexism in video games and the gaming community. In KowertR.QuandtT. (Eds), New perspectives on the social aspects of digital gaming: Multiplayer 2. New York and London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315629308-8
15.
FrankA. (2012). Gaming the game: A study of the gamer mode in educational wargaming. Simulation & Gaming, 43(1), 118–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878111408796
16.
GentileD. A.,AndersonC. A. (2003). Violent video games: The newest media violence hazard. In GentileD. A. (Ed.), Media violence and children: A complete guide for parents and professionals. Westport, Connecticut and London: Praeger.
17.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
HakimiJ. (2019). Why are video games so special?: The supreme court and the case against medium specificity. Games and Culture, 15(8), 923–942. online first June 27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412019857982
20.
HargraveA. M.,LivingstoneS. (2009). Harm and offence in media content: A review of the evidence (Kindle ed.). Bristol: Intellect Books Ltd.
21.
HartmannT.,VordererP. (2010). It’s okay to shoot a character: Moral disengagement in violent video games. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 94–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01459.x
22.
IvoryJ. D.,KalyanaramanS. (2009). Video games make people violent—Well, maybe not that game: Effects of content and person abstraction on perceptions of violent video games. Effects and Support of Censorship, Communication Reports, 22(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210902798536
23.
KeipiT.NäsiM.OksanenA.RäsänenP. (2017). Online hate and harmful content. Cross-national perspectives. London & New York: Routledge.
LinderothJ. (2012). The effort of being in a fictional world: Upkeyings and laminated frames in MMORPGs. Symbolic Interaction, 35(4), 474–492. https://doi.org/10.1002/SYMB.39
26.
MandibergS. (2017). Fallacies of game localization. Censorship and TorrentialDownpour. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization, 4(2), https://doi.org/10.1075/jial.00002.man
27.
MillJ.S. (2002). On Liberty (Dover Thrift Editions). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
28.
MortensenT. E.,JørgensenK. (2020). The paradox of transgression in games. London: Routledge.
29.
MurrayJ. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
NieborgD.,FoxmanM. (2018). Mainstreaming misogyny: The beginning of the end and the end of the beginning in gamergate coverage. In VickeryJ. R.EverbachT. (Eds.), Mediating misogyny; Gender, technology and harassment (pp. 111–130). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72917-6_6
PfisterE. (2020). “Man spielt nicht mit hakenkreuzen!” Imaginations of the holocaust and crimes against humanity during world war ii in digital games. In von LünenA.LewisK. J.LitherlandB.CullumP. H. (Eds), Historia ludens. The playing historian. New York: Routledge.
33.
SalenK.,ZimmermanE. (2004). Rules of play. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
SchechnerR. (2017). Performance studies: An introduction (3rd ed.). London, New York: Routledge.
35.
SchulzkeM. (2020). Simulating good and evil: The morality and politics of videogames. New Bruinswick: Rutgers University Press.
36.
SciS. A.,OttB. L. (2017). Super Columbine Massacre RPG!: The procedural rhetoric of critical (Gun) play. Cultural Studies – Critical Methodologies, 17(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708616636071
StenrosJ. (2015). Playfulness, play, and games: A constructionist ludology approach. PhD thesis. Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere. https://trepo.tuni.fi/handle/10024/96986
40.
Sutton-SmithB. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
TsujiY. (2018). Regulations on Japanese Video Games for Protection of Children in Japan. Columbia Journal of Asian Law, 31(2), https://doi.org/10.7916/cjal.v31i2.3364
42.
TurnerV. (1974). Liminal to liminoid in play, flow, and ritual: An essay in comparative symbology. Houston, TX: Rice University Studies.
