Slashdot Mirror
Manhunt 2 Rejected By BBFC Again, Rockstar Appeals Again
Gamespot is reporting that, for a second time, the UK's British Board of Film Classification has declined to assign a rating to Rockstar's Manhunt 2. And, again, Rockstar is appealing that decision. "As for why the edits weren't to the BBFC's liking, the board stated that the 'reduction in visual detail in some of the execution kills' was still not enough to bring the title in line with an 18 rating. The director of the BBFC, David Cooke, also said the organisation had suggested further changes to the game be made, although some requests were ignored. Rockstar responded with a statement shortly after the announcement, stating that it would also be appealing this decision, and that the extra changes it was requested to make were 'unacceptable.'"
How is that so strange? People have controlled the flow of information for millenia. It's human nature. In fact, it's one of the sanist and most understandable things out there. You might not agree with it, but SOMEONE is going to control the flow of information, the only question is 'who'?
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Here's a reality check:
Civilization = bondage
If you don't like civilization, fine, abandon it. The fact that you choose to be a part of civilization means that you've agreed to relinquish some level of power. That's not going to change until you throw off the bonds of civilization and become a one-man society. The only question is "which powers"? Some states value physical safety above all else, some value ecconomic fairness (in various deffinitions). That's what civiliation IS. The very fact that you are communicating over this vast network construct that our civilization has made, means that you have agreed to some degree of power relinquishment, so don't blame me for doing the same!
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Heh, well, you're right on one account, there are FAR worse problems, and in the grand scheme, this amounts to little or nothing. But blatent violence as shock value is just another form of social control, as it triggers our deeply seeded animal-like fascination with death and dominance, basically it attempts to undo everything that civilization stands for. Sure, one game isn't going to singlehandedly cause the distruction of the human race as we know it, but shouldn't we actively be trying to reject forms of entertainment that attempt to use our negative attributes in order to sell us things?
The fact is, this is all about making money, if you think it's about free-speech or some kind of altruism, then you're deluding yourselves. Rockstar is a company, just like any other, but they're using shock value in order to make a profit. That, in itself, to me, is reason enough not to buy it. To ban it? Maybe not, but to do everything possible to inform people that they shouldn't give in to Rockstar's trap, I'm all for.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
If you violate the "laws of war" you can and will be prosecuted for murder.
So when does the GW Bush trial begin?
1. No formal declaration of war
2. No concrete political objective to end the "war"
3. Unnecessary prolongation of the "war".
4. Classification of non-uniformed combatants as "terrorists" and claiming they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions since they are "unlawful combatants". Yet the military obviously can recognize them enough to shoot at them.
Atricle 44 of Protocol I:
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
( a ) During each military engagement, and
( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 ( c ).
4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.
5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities.
5. Guantanamo, with all that implies.
So, when do we ship the Bush administration to The Hague?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.