Freedom of speech isn't absolute in a moral sense. Hate speech, denial of Holocaust, yelling fire in a crowded theatre, etc. Expressions can have harmful repercussions and thus aren't free in an absolute sense. Not saying that harmful gender stereotypes are equally significantly harmful, just pointing out that the people saying "the artist is free to do whatever she/he pleases without repercussions" aren't correct.
But technically, in the gaming world, the consumer has direct influence on the video game entertainment industry on what gets published by voting with their purchase of the game.
Thus, the consumers are the ones who act as the center of what drives video game expansion and its continued existence as a business.
Technically, people do vote with their freedom to purchase whatever style of game they want, which indirectly shows which storytellers/artists/etc... keep making games.
It's a circular argument/business model. Gamers want more of X so producers make more of 'X' until gamers tire of the repeated gamestyle and move on, thus instituting a new scramble by developers to find that next big 'Y' feature.
Does that mean it should be exempt from criticism or strive to include a bigger market share by appealing to more women by way of more gender-equal games? Of course not.
Just that it's harder to introduce change in any entertainment industry, which is selective and profit-driven, when opposed to the reality of life, which inevitably features working with others on a day to day basis.
Freedom of speech, in terms of art, definitely should be an absolute, otherwise you leave the door open for picking and choosing what is or isnt acceptable based on a single individual's belief, or worse yet, what the mob(majority) believe.
This is what I'm getting at, though perhaps phrased differently.
People should be allowed to print/draw/whatever they want. Granted, the caveat of not 'harming' others exists, but even that line is debatable.
Your yelling fire in a theater example obviously has the capacity for leading to obvious physical harm, but does a racist picture in a KKK pamphlet carry equal potential for harm just because it could incite a KKK member to do harm to others?
It's the same argument made that violent video games lead to school shootings and the like. In that case, as far as the law stands thus far (I think, haven't kept up on Biden's line of inquiry) the onus falls on the person themselves, or their parents, with available things like the ESRB and M rated games.
Granted, society as a whole can choose to demand accountability from such things, and rightfully so. But moving from being dismissive/opposing of ideas to outright not allowing them strikes me as censorship.
