Slashdot Mirror
Manhunt 2 Banned In Britain
westlake writes "Rockstar's Manhunt 2 has been banned in the U.K. for what the British Board of Film Classification calls its 'unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying.' 'There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.' The company has six weeks to submit an appeal. The last game to be refused classification was Carmageddon in 1997. That decision was later overturned via the appeals process."
If this game gets released for the PC I'm going to import it out of principle. Now, where did I leave my hammer again?
It lets me know which ones to buy.
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
The very idea of banning ANYTHING entertainment-related in a 1st world country/area is completely stupid.
Any newscast will be covering events at least as horrible if not worse than anythin you will find in a video game. The difference is, when you hear about someone getting brutally murdered on the news, a person actually died.
I've always felt those that say videogames/movies/whatever that are too violent are the sick ones, for they apparently cannot discern fantasy from reality.
Living With a Nerd
The question is: will it help? In Germany they also have a big controversy about violence in computer games (they call it "killergames" / de: "Killerspiele"). But the politicians don't ask them self if banning a computer game stops the users from using it. If the children can't buy it at the store, they'll just download it from the bittorent or edonkey network. And if they don't have an internet connection, they copy it from their friends. Children are not stupid.
Another question is: is this appropriate? I can truly understand that the politicians don't want to promote violence in games, but it's one thing to not like something and a complete other thing to ban/censor something.
Or indeed a browser that can be pointed at an import website.
They can't stop all copies from reaching people. But they can significantly reduce the volume with these laws.
Or has your country decided that drug laws are pointless, too?
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Well, England is a country that believes firmly that firearms cause murder and that the best way to promote civil rights is to have 100,000 cameras filming the public at all times. Whatever happened to punishing the guilty and letting the rest of us move on with our lives? You can't protect people from themselves.
Nobody needs the government to tell them what games to play. They're just games, and what people do after playing the game is THEIR responsibility. No video game is going to MAKE someone commit a murder. It's FANTASY and a healthy way to release aggression in a harmless way. Sigh.
I love Britain, and have visited many times; but they look like they are heading down the slow road to Hell.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
Wars are covered daily on TV for the children ( a.k.a. tomorrow's drone soldiers ).
Sincerely,
X
I wouldn't exactly say these types of bans or things like drug laws are pointless. They just don't have the effect that a lot of people think. Making something that is in high demand illegal doesn't actually eliminate it from the population. All it does is change the distributors. Just look at our current drug laws and prohibition. These things exist because a large percentage of the population wants them to. Laws won't change that.
The issue is that the game will be played by people under the age of 18, even if they can't buy it. Leaving aside the matter of downloading the game from the internet, most parents seem happy to buy games rated 18 for their 12-17 year old offspring without a second thought.
Ratings on games are ignored far more (and by a larger age gap) than ratings on movies. Probably because of the word 'game'. Even if the stores hold up the game's rating at the point of sale, the parents will still go and buy their kid the game for them.
This is the situation in the murder case - the parent's bought their 14 year old sun an 18 certificate game. Aside from that irresponsible act, it had nothing to do with the child's death unless he was goading on a drug addled thug with themes from the game.
99% of kids of 14+ can handle 18 films and games without an issue I'd hazard a guess. However that other 1% can cause a lot of issues, hence the ratings.
I'm totally against bans however. I think the game should be made available, but not via the usual routes. Sell it in sex shops, so adults can buy it, but they'll stop and think about why their getting their 12 year old kid something from a sex shop. If they're happy to buy their kid things from a sex shop, then quite clearly the game isn't the issue at fault anyway.
Yep, and both parents of the murdered 14 year old said they used to play it together (which the police said was not true and went out of their way to state very clearly it wasn't a factor as the killer had never played it, that newspaper reports to the contrary were incorrect and that the motive was robbery).
Yet still both parents of the victim hold the game responsible - even though the only person involved who owned or had played a copy was the victim! They have not explained why their 14 year old child was allowed this 18 certificate game when they thought it was so deplorable - however they have the nerve to accuse Rockstar of being irresponsible. Given by their own admission, they were blatantly aware their 14 year old had this 18 certificate game and used to let him play it, that's somewhat ironic. I fully expect they even bought it for him.
Of course, the press (The Sun, The Mirror, GMTV, The BBC) didn't bother to correct their stories when it transpired they had been grossly misreporting the story for months (even after the police had been very clear in saying what the press was reporting was incorrect).
It's a matter of creative freedom. It is very hard to draw concrete lines on what should and should not be censored, especially when everyone is of different opinions. What you consider an abomination of violence and brutality might be someone else's reminder that life is not all roses and rainbows.
The possibility exists that some unstable person will get a hold of these games and go ballistic, but similar arguments have been made about all media over the years. It's the "corrupting our youth" fallacy. Even in a utopia free from any violent media or influences, there's no guarantee that peace itself won't act as a catalyst for some unstable psycho's massacre.
We minimize censorship because of an implicit understanding that everyone is different. We're allowed to judge for ourselves what we should and shouldn't consume. That some people are unable to make that call is a fault of other aspects of society, not the media it produces.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
Seriously, I think you have your priorities backwards... we should be concerned about the validity of measures taken to repress freedom, not concerned about the validity of one way in which people choose to express it.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
"It's FANTASY and a healthy way to release aggression in a harmless way."
Whatever happened to physical activity as a way to release aggression? I don't think these games make people into killers, but they sure help turn them into deconditioned tubs of lard. Get away from the monitor and spend the time exercising.
What is the deal here? While I don't have a problem with limiting access to children, why the fsck are they messsing around with content a GROWN ADULT might wish to play?? The US is starting to lean this way too which saddens me.
What's next....banning books that have too much violent, sadistic content? Sure its not as flashy as the video game, but, it still promotes the same messages....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You know, I really hate this perspective. It assumes that everyone agrees on what is offensive.
What about what I find offensive? The platitude ridden crap we get now is more offensive to me than some "snuff" game with no artistic merit. I love how these "small minded idiots" are branded as such based on no other criteria than creating something you disagree with. You may think you are voicing the opinion of reason, but its statements like yours that are more censorship favoring than anything else I tend to hear.
How about personal accountability for the media you consume?
How about making choices for yourself instead of assuming your opinion is the opinion?
How about understanding that majority opinion has been shown to be full of shit more than once?
It's like pornography, most of it is harmless and simply boring, but some of it is too extreme to be tolerated by the large majority of people, and I think it is fair to ban it.
So what if something is too extreme to be tolerated by the large majority of people? If they don't tolerate it then they don't have to buy it. Problem solved, without interfering with other people's liberties.
Sure I understand games are not the cause, but with the great majority of people suffering more and more mental illnesses for whatever reason, do you want someone already on the edge to have this material?
I'm honestly not sure I care. I don't want my society being made into some sort of padded room for the "fragile" people. If some people can't take certain forms of entertainment, then they, or their caretakers if they're not competent to care for themselves, need to steer themselves away from it. It's that simple.
If you're offended by something, or worse, if something makes you more likely to do something bad/violent/criminal, then you have a responsibility to keep yourself away from it. People do stupid shit when they're intoxicated, but they don't get a free pass because they're drunk -- they chose to ingest alcohol, and are still responsible for their actions. Similarly, "the videogame made me do it" isn't an excuse, either. (Actually, it's far less of one than even the alcohol is.)
Society shouldn't be censored for children or the mentally ill.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Good god. "Freedom of speech" isn't an "excuse." It's a fucking right! I'm hoping that either a) you grew up under a repressive regime and just haven't recovered from it or b) this is a very nicely, subtly constructed troll. Anything else marks you as a tool, in at least a couple senses of the word. If it's option B, then I'll just say, "Well done."
"Should" doesn't apply. They are creative works. Unless they're somehow forcing themselves on people, creative works don't have to justify their own existence. It's incumbent upon each person experiencing them to decide whether they have any value, as you just have, but only for themselves. The word for applying that valuation to everyone is "censorship".
If you want to argue that doesn't work for children, sure, you've got a good majority behind you on that. But "not suitable for children", "without value for me", and "shouldn't be produced" are three extremely different evaluations. That last one threatens to step on my rights and the artists' rights.
with the great majority of people suffering more and more mental illnesses for whatever reason, do you want someone already on the edge to have this material?Exactly what are you trying to say numerically? That the majority of people have mental illnesses? Obviously that's not true. "Mental illness" is generally defined against the standard of observed norms, so if it covered a majority of the population it would have to be redefined.
I'm going to guess you're just vaguely alluding to some trend of increased diagnoses of mental illness without any specific reference, and I'll stipulate to that for the sake of argument. Do I want the mentally ill to have Manhunt 2? Unless they've been involuntarily committed, it's no one's business what creative works the mentally ill consume. I don't need the government to protect me from someone playing a video game. I need the government to protect me from someone trying to hurt me, at which job they are already doing their best, thank you.
There are times when governments are at least arguably justified in keeping certain things out of the hands of certain populations. Many things are routinely kept out of the hands of children, and sometimes things like firearms are kept out of the hands of the mentally ill. But any such denial is necessarily an abrogation of their rights and must be undertaken with the utmost care. For you to casually decide to deny something to the mentally ill just because you think it has no value is a gross injustice. For the BBFC to decide to deny something to everybody—not just minors, but everybody—because they think it has no value is grosser than gross.
You are attacking a straw man, because insofar as slashdot reaches consensus on anything, it does not support censorship of music.
We are not defending the game companies. We are opposing censorship.
If it didn't work for them with Manhunt, they wouldn't be repeating the formula with Manhunt 2.
Violent games aren't the only kind that make money. But there IS money to be made in that market.
Why should violence be a requirement for good sales for them to be allowed to sell it?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hostel II, the movie about rape/murder/torture/death/slashing/etc, was 5th in terms of revenues for this last weekend in the UK.
p. It doesn't help the family-friendly image of the Wii either.
Jack Thompson's going to have a field day with this game too. He called the GTA series a 'murder simulator', but this game comes far closer to that description than GTA could accomplish. I think with the Wii controls (Swing the remote in a stabbing fashion to slice open your opponent's throat) his insanity may find a foothold.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
How are sadistic killings and relentless manhunts different from standard Hollywood movies or TV series?
Disembowelment, shots to the head, criminally insane killers, rape, torture, etc., they all seem to be standard plot devices in movies and even TV shows.
Emotional and self righteous, well done +1.
However it can be a FUCKING RIGHT and also be used an excuse for grotesque things. The point is that it can be used to defend something that isn't really speech or expression, when you start giving these things more and more flexible definitions.
There is a *reason* for freedom of speech, and it's not there to let you play computer games about murdering people in horrible ways, it's there to stop people from repressing your opinions.
We should ban the Bible while we're at it, encouraging rape and stoning people to death. How about "Old Yeller"? I mean, shooting dogs HAS to be animal cruelty, and we can't be seen supporting that. And "To Kill a Mockingbird", because there's violence in there, too. None of those books are necessary.
How about you stop being a fucking pussy, and take some responsibility for the degradation of society by being perpetually afraid of everything and expecting the "government" to protect you from your own shadow? Games don't create violence. They simply reflect society's values, as all art does. Violence is inevitable when people are more willing to be a victim than to do something proactive to stop antisocial behavior. Start telling people that their kid is a brat, and that they're a jackass. Maybe if they hear it enough, they'll start to believe it.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
But freedom of speeech is not an unlimited right and it has no universal definition.
Its roots in the U.S. lie in the ideal of unconstrained political debate among citizens, extending the thought to the protection of artistic expression comes much later.
Oh... adults! Yes, clearly those "adult" bastards can not be trusted. A movie board is much better off deciding what's best like them. Kiddos!
:-S
Seriously, why can even movies be "banned"?
Because this movie, unlike any other gory action movie, will inspire murderers and they won't be inspired by anything else either?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
This to me is equivalent to book-banning. All mediums have the possibility to influence action on irrational folks (the crusades were based on some holy book i hear?). It's not like the wii is going to remain the forefront of simulation. Technology will go further and further into simulating real-world experiences. Will the limits of what those creators are allowed to do be set by legislation? Tsk tsk.
Freedom is dangerous. Free speech is dangerous. Whenever you have a free society, there is an inherent danger that someone might do something risky and/or undesirable.
However, if you look at history, authoritarian government is much more violent and dangerous that petty street criminals. And authoritarian governments usually do a poor job of controlling street crime for what it is worth.
So you are really making a deal with the devil. Enjoy the "safety" that fascism brings.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
Free speech is a natural human right. Everyone has the right to free speech, unless some outside force takes it away. Just because the UK government doesn't recognize the right to freedom of speech, doesn't mean that the UK government isn't abusing human rights by restricting speech.
Governments don't GIVE people rights... people have the rights, and government can choose to either take those rights away or not take those rights away.
"Rights" are not laws of physics, inherent in the universe.
They are simply what a given society decides that they are in a particular place at a particular time.
Your idea of what you want as a "right" might not be the same as someone else's, after all. For example, your "right" to chastise your child might conflict with your child's "right" not to be assaulted. There's no law of natture which says which "right" is right.
Where I come from, freedom of speech doesn't come with some nebulous rider about "some value to what is being said". I suppose that's why we don't put quotation marks around it. Sounds like "freedom of speech" is a lot like not having freedom of speech. The whole point of freedom of speech is that you are free to speak, regardless of whether others think what you have to say has any value.
Incitement and conspiracy are not covered by free speech laws because these are cases where the speech is intended to cause specific action, causing the act of speech to be considered an action and not (simply) a statement. As in many cases, a person's intent is an essential element in making a legal determination.
The doctrine of free speech is generally understood to make lawful any statement that cannot be shown to have specific illegal intent (e.g., incitement) or content (e.g., copyright, obscenity). The burden of proof in this way of seeing things is on the person wanting the speech to be stopped; it must be proven that there is illegal intent or content to the speech. In your way of seeing things, the burden of proof is on the speaker, who must prove that there is "some value". Next you'll be telling us that people are "innocent until proven guilty" provided they can prove their innocence first.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
No, people have no natural rights. The concept of rights wouldn't exist without society. There would only be power: do I have the power to do this or not? Every right involves giving up another right as part of a mutual trade with another human being. I don't want to be hit in the face, neither do you. We both give up the right to hit each other in the face in exchange for not getting hit in the face. And we agree that if anyone else tries to hit either one of us in the face, the other will try to stop it. All rights are derived from this principle of contract. I mean, if I say I have the right to free speech, but no one will uphold my right, do I have it or don't I? You have to walk pretty far out on a philosophical limb to say I do. Realistically and in any practical sense, I don't.
So, I would say, Governments do not give people rights, other people do through contract. Government merely expresses the collective will of the people as to what our collective rights should be.
The whole concept of natural rights is a kind of dodge or con. It is simply an appeal to authority designed to shut down debate around rights. "Oh, sorry. That's a natural right, end of discussion." The thing is, if there were such a thing as natural rights, they would be clear and self evident to all. Therefore the discussion of natural rights would never need to take place because we would all know them by instinct. Yet we do need to discuss them, and there is no clear consensus on what rights should be included in the hallowed list of 'natural' rights.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Further a liberal's idea of freedom is being able to persue one's desires. However most cultures and religions define freedom as over-coming one's own desires, rather than being a slave to them, and also the pressures of the world around you. Who is stronger : the one who gives in to desire and loses their virginity or the one who resists and waits for the arrival of the beloved?
Freedom isn't as simple as you think.
As for tyrants : you should study the mongol empire. It is a fasinating example of the benefit of strong leadership, exchanging one type of freedom to gain another, and arguably a better form. Pity that so many had to die though.
How about we just float this idea: Video games are fake, and what you do inside of one is similar to what you do inside your head, no body's business but your own. Other people are real and you ARE responsible to what you do there. Is it really so hard to explain to people that most gamers don't even think about the violence in a game after a few hours. Once you understand the game mechanics all games are like solitaire: just because you see kings and queens in front of you, doesn't mean you are plotting regicide.
As long as it can be proved that it's only simulated and no actual children were harmed in the production, I really don't see anything wrong with a "child rape" video game. If somebody wants to get their rocks off, they will do; and if they can be persuaded to do so into nothing worse than a box of Kleenex, then I call that pretty effective damage limitation.
Now, if somebody gets the idea to go out and rape an actual child, then yes, of course they should be punished for that. But FCOL, there's no way in hell that you can equate looking at drawings -- for remember, we have already stated above that that is all these computer graphics are, they are not photographs -- with the act depicted.
As for "ethnic cleansing in Serbia", wouldn't that just be Operation Wolf with different graphics?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!