Rockstar Appeals British Ban on Manhunt 2
1up is reporting (via MCV) that Rockstar has decided to appeal the BBFC ruling on their uber-violent Manhunt 2 title. The 'next step' is to get a hearing scheduled, which will allow the game to be demo'd and arguments given. "Rockstar Games had been given six weeks to appeal the decision, and with that opportunity about to expire, the company lodged its formal appeal yesterday ... The appeal was filed with the Video Appeals Committee, which can overturn the BBFC decision. As noted in our first article about the ban, the VAC overturned the BBFC's ban of Carmageddon back in 1997, giving Rockstar a glimmer of hope in its current situation."
Wow... #2 pretty much eliminates any garantee of freedom of speech at all!
So they can ban speech "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."... Talk about catch-all.
So basicly the poster is right. There is no garantee of freedom of speech in England. Virtually anything can be argued to fall under one of those categories.
Carmageddon was staged as a cartoon.
The pedestrian targets and obstacles never allowed to become too real.
Manhunt 2 is unmistakably derived from the sadistic and malign torture porn flicks - exploitation films - like Saw and Hostel.
If you can't see that distinction - if you can't make that distinction - then the critics of video game violence have won their point.
Except the opposite is entirely true. At least the guarantee of freedom of speech presented is true and valid insofar as it is written; namely, it is legally plausible for the judiciary of the EU to follow that law, every time, without fail.
Contrast this to the First Amendment, which has never been enforced as written and which will never be enforced as written, as it provides no room for compromise of any kind, as with most of the Bill of Rights.
While you are correct in that it is a catch-all, it is not as wide a catch-all as you are suggesting it to be. Only a few of those exemptions can be widely applied, and even then, they must undergo judicial scrutiny to be applied.
With the First Amendment, the judiciary can come up with whatever exemptions it feels like- and does.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance