Manhunt 2 banned in the UK (both PS2 and Wii versions)

[JKTrix]

Knights feel free to merge this with the other thread (http://forums.eyesonff.com/general-gaming-discussion/106292-manhunt.html) if you see fit, but I felt this was worth its own topic.

It's a tough call. While there are plenty of adult gamers who wouldn't be affected by this, there's no other way to guarantee that kids or people with a loose grip on reality won't get their hands on it. It really sucks for those who were looking forward to it.

To quote Kotaku (http://kotaku.com/gaming/breaking/manhunt-2-banned-in-uk-270070.php):

Today, the British Board of Film Classification, the UK's independent regulator of film, video and gaming, announced that it has rejected both the PS2 and Wii version of Manhunt 2. Manhunt 2 was developed by Rockstar Games and is the sequel to Manhunt, a game that was banned in several different countries and linked to the murder of a 14 year-old boy. With this announced ruling, Manhunt 2 cannot legally be sold anywhere in the United Kingdom. This is the first game to be rejected since Carmageddon in 1997. We just got off the phone with BBFC's Sue Clark, who said, "We took a lot of time in examining Manhunt 2. Banning is not something we take lightly." She added that the regulatory board examines video games closer than its counterparts aboard.

Her remarks echo BBFC Director David Cooke, who stated, "Rejecting a work is a very serious action and one which we do not take lightly. Where possible we try to consider cuts or, in the case of games, modifications which remove the material which contravenes the Board's published Guidelines. In the case of Manhunt 2 this has not been possible. Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing. There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game."

According to BBFC's Sue Clark, five or six examiners played through "several hours of the game." Using cheat codes, they were able to play the "tops of each level." The BBFC was also furnished with a copy of the game's script. These same examiners then produced a report on their findings. The decision to ban Manhunt 2 was then made by a BBFC panel which consisted of Director and the Presidential Team of Sir Quentin Thomas, Lord Taylor of Warwick and Janet Lewis-Jones. Under the terms of the Video Recordings Act the game's distributors have the right to appeal the Board's decision.

This ruling will certainly set a precedent, and Manhunt 2 is unlikely to clear censorship in Germany and Australia. Hit the jump to read Director David Cooke's full statement. Brian Ashcraft


"Rejecting a work is a very serious action and one which we do not take lightly. Where possible we try to consider cuts or, in the case of games, modifications which remove the material which contravenes the Board's published Guidelines. In the case of Manhunt 2 this has not been possible. Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing. There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.

"Although the difference should not be exaggerated the fact of the game's unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying and the sheer lack of alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer, together with the different overall narrative context, contribute towards differentiating this submission from the original Manhunt game. That work was classified '18' in 2003, before the BBFC's recent games research had been undertaken, but was already at the very top end of what the Board judged to be acceptable at that category."

"Against this background, the Board's carefully considered view is that to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2, on either platform, would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors, within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public."

[Mirage]

That's stupid and retarded. Slap an 18+ or AO rating on them, and have the clerks ask for identification.

Not that it matters anyway, people will just import it from other PAL areas if they really want it. It only means loss of income for British retailers.

[Raebus]

That's stupid and retarded. Slap an 18+ or AO rating on them, and have the clerks ask for identification.

QFT

[Odaisé Gaelach]

Ireland has yet to pass judgement on Manhunt 2. I've never played it, so I can't pass judgement either.

Games sold in Ireland don't get rated by the government, but if the Irish Film Censor's Office (Oifig Scrúdóir na Scannán) think that a game is unfit for viewing, they can apply to have it banned.

Remember Carmageddon, back in 1997? In England they sold a water-down version of the game. In Ireland, it wasn't watered down at all.

[blim]

So are any PAL countries not banning it? because i've really been looking forward to this game and as a 30 year old who's never broken the law (well, never been caught) i feel i can decide for myself what games i can play.

[Madame Adequate]

And this is why USA > UK.

IFCO says it won't be available for sale in Ireland.

Judgeing from the way they normally are quite stringent, I'd highly doubt Australia allows something we don't, too.

It disgusts me that in this day and age this kind of thing can happen.

As for where PAL gamers can get it, I'd be highly surprised if all the Scandanavian countries ban it. Keep an eye on places like Estonia, Sweden, etc.

[licence]

Bloody hell, people should be allowed to decide for themselves what they should be play and shouldn't. This ruling should be challenged hugely.

[Markus. D]

I didn't really like the first Manhunt... :\

But it was eventually banned from sale here aswell.

[Mirage]

Whether or not you liked it is irrelevant. This clashes with freedom of expression.

[Odaisé Gaelach]

IFCO says it won't be available for sale in Ireland.

Yep, you're right... IFCO: Irish Film Censors Office - NEWS FROM IFCO (http://www.ifco.ie/ifco/ifcoweb.nsf/web/news?opendocument&news=yes&type=graphic)

[Markus. D]

Whether or not you liked it is irrelevant. This clashes with freedom of expression.

Oh gawsh~ Quite alot of things clash with that phrase.

[Odaisé Gaelach]

MANHUNT 2 - STATEMENT FROM ENTERTAINMENT LEISURE SOFTWARE PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION (ELSPA)

STATEMENT FROM ENTERTAINMENT LEISURE SOFTWARE PUBLISHERS
ASSOCIATION (ELSPA)

British Board of Film Classification

MANHUNT 2

PAUL JACKSON - DIRECTOR GENERAL, ELSPA

"A decision from the BBFC such as this demonstrates that we have a games ratings system in the UK that is effective. It shows it works and works well. Any decision the BBFC takes, it takes on the basis of its remit to rate on screen entertainment.

"The games industry is a creative phenomenon that produces all kinds of games across all kinds of genres that appeal to all kinds of people across the country, young and old, male and female. The important thing to know is that all games are rated according to age suitability, with over 70 per cent of games being available to all ages over three years."

ELSPA: Press Office: Press Releases: MANHUNT 2 - STATEMENT FROM ENTERTAINMENT LEISURE SOFTWARE PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION (ELSPA) (http://www.elspa.com/?i=6361&s=1111&f=49)

It sounds like they support the ban.

I think that this is all just much ado about nothing.

[JKTrix]

Their main arguement is that you're killing humans for the sake of killing humans and "the sheer lack of alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer".

In other words, I guess if you were killing Aliens and had minigames, it would have been ok.

[Dreddz]

Like I was going to buy it in the shops anyway.

[Fatal Impurity]

Knights feel free to merge this with the other thread (http://forums.eyesonff.com/general-gaming-discussion/106292-manhunt.html) if you see fit, but I felt this was worth its own topic.

It's a tough call. While there are plenty of adult gamers who wouldn't be affected by this, there's no other way to guarantee that kids or people with a loose grip on reality won't get their hands on it. It really sucks for those who were looking forward to it.

To quote Kotaku (http://kotaku.com/gaming/breaking/manhunt-2-banned-in-uk-270070.php):

Today, the British Board of Film Classification, the UK's independent regulator of film, video and gaming, announced that it has rejected both the PS2 and Wii version of Manhunt 2. Manhunt 2 was developed by Rockstar Games and is the sequel to Manhunt, a game that was banned in several different countries and linked to the murder of a 14 year-old boy. With this announced ruling, Manhunt 2 cannot legally be sold anywhere in the United Kingdom. This is the first game to be rejected since Carmageddon in 1997. We just got off the phone with BBFC's Sue Clark, who said, "We took a lot of time in examining Manhunt 2. Banning is not something we take lightly." She added that the regulatory board examines video games closer than its counterparts aboard.

Her remarks echo BBFC Director David Cooke, who stated, "Rejecting a work is a very serious action and one which we do not take lightly. Where possible we try to consider cuts or, in the case of games, modifications which remove the material which contravenes the Board's published Guidelines. In the case of Manhunt 2 this has not been possible. Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing. There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game."

According to BBFC's Sue Clark, five or six examiners played through "several hours of the game." Using cheat codes, they were able to play the "tops of each level." The BBFC was also furnished with a copy of the game's script. These same examiners then produced a report on their findings. The decision to ban Manhunt 2 was then made by a BBFC panel which consisted of Director and the Presidential Team of Sir Quentin Thomas, Lord Taylor of Warwick and Janet Lewis-Jones. Under the terms of the Video Recordings Act the game's distributors have the right to appeal the Board's decision.

This ruling will certainly set a precedent, and Manhunt 2 is unlikely to clear censorship in Germany and Australia. Hit the jump to read Director David Cooke's full statement. Brian Ashcraft


"Rejecting a work is a very serious action and one which we do not take lightly. Where possible we try to consider cuts or, in the case of games, modifications which remove the material which contravenes the Board's published Guidelines. In the case of Manhunt 2 this has not been possible. Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing. There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.

"Although the difference should not be exaggerated the fact of the game's unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying and the sheer lack of alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer, together with the different overall narrative context, contribute towards differentiating this submission from the original Manhunt game. That work was classified '18' in 2003, before the BBFC's recent games research had been undertaken, but was already at the very top end of what the Board judged to be acceptable at that category."

"Against this background, the Board's carefully considered view is that to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2, on either platform, would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors, within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public."

It's no big loss...and if they ban films that are probably less violent and sick than this then they can ban this too for all i care.

[Meat Puppet]

I like* this. In my country, it is an offense, or whatever, to be in possession of Manhunt. People own it anyway, though; one of my good friends stashes it in the same chest that he keeps his weed & sawed-off shotgun in.


* Not actual like.

[Sergeant Hartman]

Not very pleased with this :mad2:

[Old Manus]

I bet the Daily Mail isn't very pleased. They won't be able to donate most of an issue complaining about it now.

[Discord]

Hai-hoi! The Brits now have a good reason to come back to illegal P2Ping!

[Mirage]

We all know that Manhunt is some sort of high tech digital drug, designed to corrupt the minds of our youths. It's worse than heroin!

[Discord]

We all know that Manhunt is some sort of high tech digital drug, designed to corrupt the minds of our youths. It's worse than heroin!

It's certainly easier to distribute.:tongue:

[Mirage]

Not in the UK! Heroin is probably easier to get your hands on than Manhunt over there now.

[The Fat Bioware Nerd]

I don't really care because I don't live in the UK, I live in America, and I already have my copy of Manhunt 2 pre-ordered!:p

[Fatal Impurity]

Not in the UK! Heroin is probably easier to get your hands on than Manhunt over there now.

I laugh at this because you would never guess how often i see second hand copies of Manhunt in Game...and gamestation...oh yeah and at a few of my friends houses.

But yeah Manhunt 2 has a pathetic premise anyway so whats the big deal?

[Mirage]

No no, you just have no idea how easy it actually is to get hold of some heroin.

[Raebus]

Not in the UK! Heroin is probably easier to get your hands on than Manhunt over there now.

I laugh at this because you would never guess how often i see second hand copies of Manhunt in Game...and gamestation...oh yeah and at a few of my friends houses.

But yeah Manhunt 2 has a pathetic premise anyway so whats the big deal?


FUN GAMEPLAY

Seriously, the premise in most games = Sucks.

[Fatal Impurity]

No no, you just have no idea how easy it actually is to get hold of some heroin.

Yeah i suppose you have a point. Anything that's illegal these days is easily distributed if people want it enough.

[Mirage]

But yeah Manhunt 2 has a pathetic premise anyway so whats the big deal?
The big deal is that a form of expression is being banned.

Banning things never solve problems. Just look at anything else that's banned. The idea that whatever you ban will just go away sounds like the mindset of a fascist.

[Eiko Guy]

Banning games is for the goodness of mankind. If we all knew how to shoot guns and kill, then when the aliens invade we would win. It's all a diabolicall plot to dumb us down and make us weak. So we can be harvested while the higher ups get spared.

[Fonzie]

Like this is going to stop people from ordering it from over seas.

[Madame Adequate]

I laugh at this because you would never guess how often i see second hand copies of Manhunt in Game...and gamestation...oh yeah and at a few of my friends houses.

And yet heroin is still easier to get.


But yeah Manhunt 2 has a pathetic premise anyway so whats the big deal?

Manhunt was a pretty average game. There'd be no real loss to the industry had it never existed; the same is likely to be true of this. That doesn't matter. Nobody has any right to tell an adult what they can and can't spend their money and spare time enjoying.

You can't just not care about something being banned because you personally aren't interested in it. Well, obviously you CAN, but my point is that doing so isn't just dumb, it's outright dangerous.

[Big D]

The censorship laws in commonwealth countries are actually pretty sensible. It's not just a bunch of government guys who get to ban anything they choose to dislike. There's a lot of room for consultation with any interested or affected party. Any decision to prohibit a work is made with 'freedom of speech' as the utmost consideration, and the decision can be challenged through judicial review.

In the case of video games that my country has banned in recent years, for example Manhunt, Postal 2 and Reservoir Dogs, the chief censor's report has made it clear that they were banned because they actively encouraged and rewarded the player for committing acts of simulated violence, with deliberately excessive emphasis on the suffering of the victims.

Every country, regardless of how 'free', has limitations on freedom of speech. It's just a matter of degree.

[Dreddz]

Sony and Nintendo refuse to sell the game in the United States due to the title being AO. Rockstar have to appeal to get the game rated M otherwise they will have to go back and modify the games contents to make it an M rated game. If none of that happens, Manhunt 2 is pretty much banned in the USA as well. Shame.

[CimminyCricket]

I don't understand. ;_; Why are they banning a game? Is it because of violence? There is no way to get out of subjecting the youth to violence. Are they going to ban the news too? Movies? Television?

[Mirage]

no, it's because you can do violent acts for fun.

[CimminyCricket]

So wait, are they going to ban boxing? Wrestling? What about boxing games? Rugby is pretty violent, and it looks fun, are they going to ban that too?

[Mirage]

I wouldn't mind, I hate sports games :D.

[CimminyCricket]

Nor do I xD

[Roto13]

I think all Rockstar games should be banned because they're all just controversy for the sake of free publicity and that sucks.

Boo on censorship, though. Even if the game is pure unadulterated crap like the last one, people with no taste should be allowed to play it anyway.

[Zante]

...Nobody has any right to tell an adult what they can and can't spend their money and spare time enjoying...

I was going to post how I agree with this point, but on second though...
What if someone made a game that promotes racism? Or one where you play out the holocaust? I think there is a line even for free speech. I haven't actually played Manhunt so I can't say if it crosses that line, but I wouldn't say they had no right to ban it.

[Dreddz]

Manhunt was a pretty average game. There'd be no real loss to the industry had it never existed; the same is likely to be true of this. That doesn't matter. Nobody has any right to tell an adult what they can and can't spend their money and spare time enjoying.

Manhunt was a decent game, look past all the violence theres a quality stealth game in there. Manhunt 2 may even surpass the original in more aspects than the violence. So its sad to see a potentially good game pulled from the market.

And to be honest, all the media the game has been getting means it would of probably sold quite a bit because people will want to see what the fuss is about.

[JKTrix]

The game is being banned because beyond all the brutal killing and stuff, there's...nothing. All you do (as far as I've read) is stalk and kill people in pretty brutal ways.

The ESRB's ratings for M and AO are as follows: (http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp)

M: Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

AO: Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

San Andreas became rated AO after Hot Coffee because of that. Manhunt obviously falls more on the prolonged intense violence side.

If this was coming on the Xbox, wouldn't be that big of a deal. Sure, you still can't sell it at Wal-mart (apparently where the most games are sold in the US), but at least your game can exist. In Nintendo and Sony's case, they don't allow AO games on their systems at all.

[Big D]

So wait, are they going to ban boxing? Wrestling? What about boxing games? Rugby is pretty violent, and it looks fun, are they going to ban that too?No, it's not just because "it's violent". It's because of the overwhelming emphasis and focus on the violent infliction of sadistic cruelty.

It's a matter of degree, not an absolute. It's not "all violence is bad, so it all has to be banned." It's a case-by-case matter: "is the violence, in this instance, so extreme and dealt with in such a way, that it warrants the prohibition of the title?"
In Nintendo and Sony's case, they don't allow AO games on their systems at all.I find this pretty weird, since plenty of game are legally restricted to over-18s, in a lot of countries. But Sony and Nintendo will pull any title that gets the equivalent rating in North America? Quite a strange system, in my opinion.

[Mirage]

Agreed. It would also make many adult gamers lean towards getting an MS system rather than a Sony system. Bad business tactics if you ask me.

[Odaisé Gaelach]

So wait, are they going to ban boxing? Wrestling? What about boxing games? Rugby is pretty violent, and it looks fun, are they going to ban that too?

Oh, come on! That's immature and petty. The BBFC look at lots of things when they're rating a film or a game. This isn't a decision that's been taken lightly.

Boxing games are violent, but they're not sadistic. You're trying to hurt your opponent, but you're never asked to kill them. Neither are you torturing them.

Look, go to the BBFC Student's website (http://www.sbbfc.co.uk). It's got loads of information on how the BBFC classify games and movies - and it's actually quite fascinating. :)

[Araciel]

roto hit the nail on the head with the no taste comment.

[Fonzie]

"The ultra-violent videogame Manhunt 2 allows you to rape a woman shortly after you beheaded her in the brothel level called Honey Pot. Members of the ESRB were shocked when Daniel Lamb used his male reproduction organ and simulated a penetration in the bloody hole. Other gruesome parts include microwaving a living cat to death and being a witness of necrophilia in a cemetery..."

Who would enjoy playing this?

[Karellen]

The whole necrophiliac rape thing perks my interest, but microwaving a cat to death is really not cool.

[Larahl]

"The ultra-violent videogame Manhunt 2 allows you to rape a woman shortly after you beheaded her in the brothel level called Honey Pot. Members of the ESRB were shocked when Daniel Lamb used his male reproduction organ and simulated a penetration in the bloody hole. Other gruesome parts include microwaving a living cat to death and being a witness of necrophilia in a cemetery..."

Who would enjoy playing this?
That's a bit too much...

[bipper]

"The ultra-violent videogame Manhunt 2 allows you to rape a woman shortly after you beheaded her in the brothel level called Honey Pot. Members of the ESRB were shocked when Daniel Lamb used his male reproduction organ and simulated a penetration in the bloody hole. Other gruesome parts include microwaving a living cat to death and being a witness of necrophilia in a cemetery..."

Who would enjoy playing this?
That's a bit too much...

Come on now guys. Let's not be hypocritical, I KNOW you have all thought about doing this at some point...

...or actually, I think Nominous is the only one...

[Larahl]

...or actually, I think Nominous is the only one...
He's the only one.
Look what Diablo II has done to him.
Poor Nominus. :cry:

[Raebus]

"The ultra-violent videogame Manhunt 2 allows you to rape a woman shortly after you beheaded her in the brothel level called Honey Pot. Members of the ESRB were shocked when Daniel Lamb used his male reproduction organ and simulated a penetration in the bloody hole. Other gruesome parts include microwaving a living cat to death and being a witness of necrophilia in a cemetery..."

Who would enjoy playing this?

Me? It sounds epic.

[Rostum]

I thought I read somewhere that Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony don't want AO rated games on their consoles, and that this was to be rated AO.

Oh well, it sounds like a horrible game anyways. Talk about tasteless.

[Madame Adequate]

So wait, are they going to ban boxing? Wrestling? What about boxing games? Rugby is pretty violent, and it looks fun, are they going to ban that too?No, it's not just because "it's violent". It's because of the overwhelming emphasis and focus on the violent infliction of sadistic cruelty.

It's a matter of degree, not an absolute. It's not "all violence is bad, so it all has to be banned." It's a case-by-case matter: "is the violence, in this instance, so extreme and dealt with in such a way, that it warrants the prohibition of the title?"
In Nintendo and Sony's case, they don't allow AO games on their systems at all.I find this pretty weird, since plenty of game are legally restricted to over-18s, in a lot of countries. But Sony and Nintendo will pull any title that gets the equivalent rating in North America? Quite a strange system, in my opinion.

No, they don't care about it being A/O in and of itself, they care because a huge number of retailers like Wal*Mart, Target, and so forth refuse to sell A/O games (Don't ask me why). That's a massive dent in their potential sales.

Edit: I think A/O may actually be more akin to R18 in the UK than merely 18; 18 translates more directly to M rated.


I was going to post how I agree with this point, but on second though...
What if someone made a game that promotes racism? Or one where you play out the holocaust? I think there is a line even for free speech. I haven't actually played Manhunt so I can't say if it crosses that line, but I wouldn't say they had no right to ban it.

I also think there is a line for free speech - when it becomes an unfounded criminal accusation, or is very likely to incite immediate panic. So, no slander/libel, and no yelling "fire" at the movies. Other than that, I can find no reason beyond personal distaste or fear of offense to ban or censor things. My personal distaste is not sufficient, and we have no right to never be offended by things.

[Big D]

I also think there is a line for free speech - when it becomes an unfounded criminal accusation, or is very likely to incite immediate panic. So, no slander/libel, and no yelling "fire" at the movies. Other than that, I can find no reason beyond personal distaste or fear of offense to ban or censor things. My personal distaste is not sufficient, and we have no right to never be offended by things.Offense is certainly unavoidable, hence why there's plenty of "offensive" matter available in every medium. But when it comes to the kinds of material that get banned in situations like this, it's never simply because "someone might get offended if they see it". It's always more serious - the material in question goes beyond mere offense, and actively supports and promotes (or casts in a positive light) something that the overwhelming majority of the population find abhorrent and that the laws finds seriously criminal. To quote a commentator from a recent law reform, it's about restricting the ability to promote or propagate ideas that simply have no place in a civilised society.

If defamation (libel and slander) are to remain illegal, then why shouldn't other subjects be open to censorship? After all, some might say, defamation is just lies. Lies that can be countered with rebuttals. Why should one person's reputation or sensibilities affect what can be said by every other person in the country?

The censorship regimes in place just allow society to say, "you're a sick fuck for wanting to turn something like that into a game, and an even sicker fuck for trying to market it." It's a sign of a very impotent society when 'anything goes' and any idea, no matter how repugnant, has to be treated as equally valid and equally valuable to avoid offending depraved degenerates.

[Old Manus]

Clearly, none of you have been on /b/ enough.

[NeoCracker]

I also think there is a line for free speech - when it becomes an unfounded criminal accusation, or is very likely to incite immediate panic. So, no slander/libel, and no yelling "fire" at the movies. Other than that, I can find no reason beyond personal distaste or fear of offense to ban or censor things. My personal distaste is not sufficient, and we have no right to never be offended by things.Offense is certainly unavoidable, hence why there's plenty of "offensive" matter available in every medium. But when it comes to the kinds of material that get banned in situations like this, it's never simply because "someone might get offended if they see it". It's always more serious - the material in question goes beyond mere offense, and actively supports and promotes (or casts in a positive light) something that the overwhelming majority of the population find abhorrent and that the laws finds seriously criminal. To quote a commentator from a recent law reform, it's about restricting the ability to promote or propagate ideas that simply have no place in a civilised society.

If defamation (libel and slander) are to remain illegal, then why shouldn't other subjects be open to censorship? After all, some might say, defamation is just lies. Lies that can be countered with rebuttals. Why should one person's reputation or sensibilities affect what can be said by every other person in the country?

The censorship regimes in place just allow society to say, "you're a sick smurf for wanting to turn something like that into a game, and an even sicker smurf for trying to market it." It's a sign of a very impotent society when 'anything goes' and any idea, no matter how repugnant, has to be treated as equally valid and equally valuable to avoid offending depraved degenerates.

It Promotes this kind of behavior? I hardly think Violent games are there to promote Violent behavior. And there are a large number of games that make Violent behavior look good, like GTA. However it hardly tells people that doing such things is good.

Adn Liable and Slander are Illegal because they tell you flat out lies about other people, and try to pass it off as truth. Its basicly there to ruin someones life, these games are not like that at all.

And Society can be Civilized and still play the game. So long as they don't act it out. If they do then they are hardly a civilized Society.

[Big D]

It Promotes this kind of behavior? I hardly think Violent games are there to promote Violent behavior. And there are a large number of games that make Violent behavior look good, like GTA. However it hardly tells people that doing such things is good.In this context, 'promote' has a slightly non-standard meaning. Like lots of words when they turn up in a legal context. 'Promotion' here refers to portraying something as positive or favourable, presenting it as good or in such a way as to make it seem enjoyable.


Adn Liable and Slander are Illegal because they tell you flat out lies about other people, and try to pass it off as truth. Its basicly there to ruin someones life, these games are not like that at all.What if it's not intended to 'ruin someone's life'? Suppose it's just for fun - or better yet, for profit? People make money off lies all the time. Good, wholesome business practice, some would say. Just because some people use defamation for personal vengeance shouldn't incriminate anyone who uses it with a less-personal motive like profiteering.

[JKTrix]

"The ultra-violent videogame Manhunt 2 allows you to rape a woman shortly after you beheaded her in the brothel level called Honey Pot. Members of the ESRB were shocked when Daniel Lamb used his male reproduction organ and simulated a penetration in the bloody hole. Other gruesome parts include microwaving a living cat to death and being a witness of necrophilia in a cemetery..."

Source? Google has failed me, only led me to a gonintendo comment (http://gonintendo.com/?feed=rss2&p=19922).

[Madame Adequate]

Offense is certainly unavoidable, hence why there's plenty of "offensive" matter available in every medium. But when it comes to the kinds of material that get banned in situations like this, it's never simply because "someone might get offended if they see it". It's always more serious - the material in question goes beyond mere offense, and actively supports and promotes (or casts in a positive light) something that the overwhelming majority of the population find abhorrent and that the laws finds seriously criminal. To quote a commentator from a recent law reform, it's about restricting the ability to promote or propagate ideas that simply have no place in a civilised society.

I consider a society which censors to be uncivilized.

That aside, my statement ought to amply highlight the point that what constitutes civilized varies. There are some who think the fact that divorce is permitted is the height of moral degradation. There are some (Like me) who really don't give a crap about anything like this just as long as everyone involved is involved through their own choice to be.


If defamation (libel and slander) are to remain illegal, then why shouldn't other subjects be open to censorship? After all, some might say, defamation is just lies. Lies that can be countered with rebuttals. Why should one person's reputation or sensibilities affect what can be said by every other person in the country?

Because it is about reputation, and reputation is something that can be held onto when everything else is gone. Mud sticks, sadly, and as long as it does reputation demands legal protection. Although I could see the case made that if you legalize slander and libel, people will have to learn to think more critically about accusations because they know false ones could be made.


The censorship regimes in place just allow society to say, "you're a sick smurf for wanting to turn something like that into a game, and an even sicker smurf for trying to market it." It's a sign of a very impotent society when 'anything goes' and any idea, no matter how repugnant, has to be treated as equally valid and equally valuable to avoid offending depraved degenerates.

Whoa, whoa, nobody's saying anything about this stuff being equal. I didn't care much for Manhunt. I found some of it quite unpleasant, actually. As I said above, I don't think the industry would be a lesser place if it hadn't been made. I do not attach much value to these games. But the value I attach to games does not have any bearing on what is and is not permissable. Equality before the law doesn't mean equality in any other sense whatsoever.

I claim it to be a sign of a very rich, healthy, strong society when anything goes and any idea, no matter how repugnant, has to be treated as worthy of being aired and published, even if it's disgusting and will never take off. Especially if it's offensive and unpleasant, in fact. A weak society cannot suffer the presence of such things, a strong society can.


What if it's not intended to 'ruin someone's life'? Suppose it's just for fun - or better yet, for profit? People make money off lies all the time. Good, wholesome business practice, some would say. Just because some people use defamation for personal vengeance shouldn't incriminate anyone who uses it with a less-personal motive like profiteering.

Motive isn't really relevant when it comes to defamation (Or most other crimes, for that matter). It might impact sentencing a bit, but not much and it won't do anything more. Just the same as this game - motive isn't important much. Even if Rockstar WANT to encourage violence, that's their right as far as I'm concerned. Free speech is pretty much an absolute. I'm wary even of the clauses I state earlier.

[NeoCracker]

It Promotes this kind of behavior? I hardly think Violent games are there to promote Violent behavior. And there are a large number of games that make Violent behavior look good, like GTA. However it hardly tells people that doing such things is good.In this context, 'promote' has a slightly non-standard meaning. Like lots of words when they turn up in a legal context. 'Promotion' here refers to portraying something as positive or favourable, presenting it as good or in such a way as to make it seem enjoyable.


Adn Liable and Slander are Illegal because they tell you flat out lies about other people, and try to pass it off as truth. Its basicly there to ruin someones life, these games are not like that at all.What if it's not intended to 'ruin someone's life'? Suppose it's just for fun - or better yet, for profit? People make money off lies all the time. Good, wholesome business practice, some would say. Just because some people use defamation for personal vengeance shouldn't incriminate anyone who uses it with a less-personal motive like profiteering.

Never heard Promote in that context, but alright. I still don't see why it should be sensered for making something look good. ITs a game. Nothing more. People shouldn't be influenced by a game to an extent to act it out. If so, that shows they need help, not that the game should be censored.

And I used Ruin someones life a bit losely there. I just always here it used for ones personal gain at the expense of others, so just said ruin someones life. I seem to draw a connection between the two and didn't think when posting it.

Making money of lies isn't nescessarily slander or Liable though. While some do say making money off lies is good business, general they refer to lies and exagerations about their products or services, and making boastful claims. Not trying to convince people your competitions president is gay and sleeps with pigs. That would be Liable/Slander and hardly Good Business.

[Fatal Impurity]

I cannot agree with free speech being absolutely unlimited...when it comes to serious crimes like rape and necrophilia then something HAS to be done!

[Mirage]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can harm others. What are you talking about?

[Fonzie]

"The ultra-violent videogame Manhunt 2 allows you to rape a woman shortly after you beheaded her in the brothel level called Honey Pot. Members of the ESRB were shocked when Daniel Lamb used his male reproduction organ and simulated a penetration in the bloody hole. Other gruesome parts include microwaving a living cat to death and being a witness of necrophilia in a cemetery..."

Source? Google has failed me, only led me to a gonintendo comment (http://gonintendo.com/?feed=rss2&p=19922).

Honestly, I got it from an IGN thread, when some dude wanted to make a petition about Manhunt 2.

[Eiko Guy]

I must get this game. I heard its getting an AO status in North America. Nobody carries AO gaames. That sucks. I wat to rape a dead woman.

[Karellen]

Considering how seemingly difficult to obtain this game will be (if obtainable at all) it could very well be easier to slay and defile one yourself.

[Brennan]

That's stupid and retarded. Slap an 18+ or AO rating on them, and have the clerks ask for identification.

Not that it matters anyway, people will just import it from other PAL areas if they really want it. It only means loss of income for British retailers.

QFT

[Spammerman]

The UK needs to be backslapped. Wheres Bruce Lee when you need him?
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y28/bloodhunter11/pimpslap.jpg

[Madame Adequate]

The UK needs to be backslapped. Wheres Bruce Lee when you need him?
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y28/bloodhunter11/pimpslap.jpg

He's bein' banned, most likely.

They used to be called Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles over here, because Ninja had such violent connotations.


I cannot agree with free speech being absolutely unlimited...when it comes to serious crimes like rape and necrophilia then something HAS to be done!

Uh... logical disconnect here?

[Eiko Guy]

I don't want to rape in real life. Never know what you might catch. But in a videogame I don't have to worry about catching diseases. and if I do then I can either restart or just sit and be surprised that I caught a disease in the game. Most likely #2

[Odaisé Gaelach]

They used to be called Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles over here, because Ninja had such violent connotations.

That was, what, nearly 20 years ago? Let it go.


I don't want to rape in real life. Never know what you might catch. But in a videogame I don't have to worry about catching diseases. and if I do then I can either restart or just sit and be surprised that I caught a disease in the game. Most likely #2

Not funny.

[bipper]

People are very impressionable. I mean, women even sync there periods if all living together. I mean, that is hardly fair alone. Let alone when you get twenty guys together and they have a loogies pitting contest, and it seems harmless. Despite the fact that you are on top of a 20 story building! A person with a sense of self is often fine. It is the real psycho's that do not post on final fantasy forums that we have to worry about.

[Roto13]

People are very impressionable. I mean, women even sync there periods if all living together. I mean, that is hardly fair alone. Let alone when you get twenty guys together and they have a loogies pitting contest, and it seems harmless. Despite the fact that you are on top of a 20 story building! A person with a sense of self is often fine. It is the real psycho's that do not post on final fantasy forums that we have to worry about.

L_N?

[Skyblade]

Personally, I'm more upset at the game makers than at those banning it, ATM.

Let's face it, there have been people trying to get rid of video games pretty much ever since they were first created. These ridiculous, petty, idiotic individuals at least are doing what they think is best, even if they are totally wrong. They have failed because video games are, on the whole, quality entertainment. I can only hate people like that so much.

Then you get idiots who make games like this. Everything I have read or heard about this game seems to indicate that it has no entertainment value at all, and has no focus except pure visceral carnage. There may be some people who enjoy such junk, but I consider it total junk, and I am highly displeased with the company that made such a thing, since it was obvious to anyone with a brain that this game is exactly the sort of ammunition that those who attempt to get all video games banned love to use to further their goals.

[Odaisé Gaelach]

Just one thing: Some of you are really angry at the decision to ban Manhunt 2. At the same time you're content to have a swear filter on the forum, and the Cid's Knights deleting inappropriate posts. Isn't that a little contradictory?

[Madame Adequate]

Just one thing: Some of you are really angry at the decision to ban Manhunt 2. At the same time you're content to have a swear filter on the forum, and the Cid's Knights deleting inappropriate posts. Isn't that a little contradictory?

If I don't like it, I can leave. Conversely, if I do like Manhunt, I can't get the sequel. This is a private forum. They can demand every single post be about chickens if they like, there's not a damn thing anyone can do or should be able to do. The public sphere is a very different cry.



They used to be called Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles over here, because Ninja had such violent connotations.

That was, what, nearly 20 years ago? Let it go.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that making fun of idiot censors cut so close to the bone. :rolleyes2

[Odaisé Gaelach]

If I don't like it, I can leave. Conversely, if I do like Manhunt, I can't get the sequel. This is a private forum. They can demand every single post be about chickens if they like, there's not a damn thing anyone can do or should be able to do. The public sphere is a very different cry.

I dunno... yeah, I think you're probably right. They are too different.


I'm sorry, I didn't realize that making fun of idiot censors cut so close to the bone. :rolleyes2

I didn't realise you were trying to be funny.

[Big D]

Is there any other argument in favour of this game other than "it's freedom of speech, so it's good"? That stems from an admirable, but narrow premise: that the freedom of expression should be a virtually unlimited and universal freedom, regardless of what is being expressed. Why can't the public say "screw you, you're not bringing that :skull::skull::skull::skull: in here" when they're faced with something that is completely opposed to the common standards and morality? (NB: since censorship is strictly limited and regulated, this means you can't get widespread prohibition of anything that people simply dislike, which deflates that counter-argument.)

In an ideal world, people wouldn't be influenced by violent or sexual media. But we're not in an ideal world, and ideas can exert a harmful influence. Not just on the mentally unstable, either. This isn't hyperbole, but demonstrable fact. At its simplest and most benign, it's the reason advertising and product placement work so well.

If you take the line that "Everything should be uncensored unless it's libelous or slanderous', then you get left with a pretty sorry state of affairs. Suppose someone films himself abusing a child. He's rightly caught and imprisoned; should the police then market the film? It's only a recording of something that's already happened, after all, so no-one 'really' gets hurt by the recording itself. The victim's face could even be obscured or altered if there's a risk of defamation. To say that "it might encourage other people to do the same" is irrelevant, because responsible adults shouldn't be influenced by media. The perpetrator of the crime doesn't profit, so that eliminates the argument that "it allows someone to profit from committing an abhorrent crime." When you examine every argument and counter-argument in depth, you're left with one line: this kind of publication should be banned because it deserves to be banned, and should not be permitted because it is inherently bad and/or harmful. Either that, or "it's free speech so it's ok".

(I'm aware that I've deliberately chosen an extreme example for this little analogy; just my way of boiling the topic down to its fundamentals.)

[Fatal Impurity]

The UK needs to be backslapped. Wheres Bruce Lee when you need him?
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y28/bloodhunter11/pimpslap.jpg

He's bein' banned, most likely.

They used to be called Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles over here, because Ninja had such violent connotations.


I cannot agree with free speech being absolutely unlimited...when it comes to serious crimes like rape and necrophilia then something HAS to be done!

Uh... logical disconnect here?


Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can harm others. What are you talking about?

Look below at The Fonz's info on Manhunt 2 and you will see what i mean. In case you havnt noticed having sex with a beheaded woman is Necrohilia AND rape. Thus if it gets to this kind of level of just pure wrongness then something should be done.





"The ultra-violent videogame Manhunt 2 allows you to rape a woman shortly after you beheaded her in the brothel level called Honey Pot. Members of the ESRB were shocked when Daniel Lamb used his male reproduction organ and simulated a penetration in the bloody hole. Other gruesome parts include microwaving a living cat to death and being a witness of necrophilia in a cemetery..."

Source? Google has failed me, only led me to a gonintendo comment (http://gonintendo.com/?feed=rss2&p=19922).

Honestly, I got it from an IGN thread, when some dude wanted to make a petition about Manhunt 2.

[NeoCracker]

Is there any other argument in favour of this game other than "it's freedom of speech, so it's good"? That stems from an admirable, but narrow premise: that the freedom of expression should be a virtually unlimited and universal freedom, regardless of what is being expressed. Why can't the public say "screw you, you're not bringing that :skull::skull::skull::skull: in here" when they're faced with something that is completely opposed to the common standards and morality? (NB: since censorship is strictly limited and regulated, this means you can't get widespread prohibition of anything that people simply dislike, which deflates that counter-argument.)

In an ideal world, people wouldn't be influenced by violent or sexual media. But we're not in an ideal world, and ideas can exert a harmful influence. Not just on the mentally unstable, either. This isn't hyperbole, but demonstrable fact. At its simplest and most benign, it's the reason advertising and product placement work so well.

If you take the line that "Everything should be uncensored unless it's libelous or slanderous', then you get left with a pretty sorry state of affairs. Suppose someone films himself abusing a child. He's rightly caught and imprisoned; should the police then market the film? It's only a recording of something that's already happened, after all, so no-one 'really' gets hurt by the recording itself. The victim's face could even be obscured or altered if there's a risk of defamation. To say that "it might encourage other people to do the same" is irrelevant, because responsible adults shouldn't be influenced by media. The perpetrator of the crime doesn't profit, so that eliminates the argument that "it allows someone to profit from committing an abhorrent crime." When you examine every argument and counter-argument in depth, you're left with one line: this kind of publication should be banned because it deserves to be banned, and should not be permitted because it is inherently bad and/or harmful. Either that, or "it's free speech so it's ok".

(I'm aware that I've deliberately chosen an extreme example for this little analogy; just my way of boiling the topic down to its fundamentals.)

There is a serious difference between Something that actually happens, and something thats fictional. The two shouldn't be compared in such a way. What you are seeing in that tape is someone who is actually getting beat and harmed. Not a computer generated image getting harmed, or a person pretending to get harmed.

Also, on another note. I get the feeling you are saying these games make people more violent, well what about those that have opposite effects? I know people who are calmed down by playing violent games, and the more violent the more it calms them. You could take away such games to stop others from getting violent, but you also run the risk of causing people to get violent.

And you also mention a "Public Outcry" but I'll I've heard is some government organization decided it, not the public. I don't know much about how it works in england, so would you mind explaining how the Game Censorship goes there? I'd like to make a more educated opinion on that area.

[Madame Adequate]

Is there any other argument in favour of this game other than "it's freedom of speech, so it's good"? That stems from an admirable, but narrow premise: that the freedom of expression should be a virtually unlimited and universal freedom, regardless of what is being expressed. Why can't the public say "screw you, you're not bringing that :skull::skull::skull::skull: in here" when they're faced with something that is completely opposed to the common standards and morality? (NB: since censorship is strictly limited and regulated, this means you can't get widespread prohibition of anything that people simply dislike, which deflates that counter-argument.)

Well, they can say that. Very easily. Don't acquire/view/otherwise experience the item in question. People often seem to overlook that the free market is the ultimate in democracy. Also, it's dangerous and wildly optimistic to trust a government not to overstep the bounds when it comes to, well, pretty much anything actually. The fact that censorship would only apply to things which would be 'justly' censored today doesn't mean it won't be extended far further tomorrow.

Anyway, expression is inherently good. We don't know the Grand Ultimate Truth of things, no matter how much we think we do. Therefore, the society which allows the most ideas to circulate is the one most likely to hit upon the best way of operating. This is a pragmatic argument, so it's not one I personally believe in particularly, but still.


In an ideal world, people wouldn't be influenced by violent or sexual media. But we're not in an ideal world, and ideas can exert a harmful influence. Not just on the mentally unstable, either. This isn't hyperbole, but demonstrable fact. At its simplest and most benign, it's the reason advertising and product placement work so well.

I don't care. I honestly do not care if someone, unstable or not, is influenced by media. That is their problem to deal with. If they make it someone else's problem, then they will meet the same force of law and justice as anyone who spontaneously upped and stabbed a person.


If you take the line that "Everything should be uncensored unless it's libelous or slanderous', then you get left with a pretty sorry state of affairs. Suppose someone films himself abusing a child. He's rightly caught and imprisoned; should the police then market the film? It's only a recording of something that's already happened, after all, so no-one 'really' gets hurt by the recording itself. The victim's face could even be obscured or altered if there's a risk of defamation. To say that "it might encourage other people to do the same" is irrelevant, because responsible adults shouldn't be influenced by media. The perpetrator of the crime doesn't profit, so that eliminates the argument that "it allows someone to profit from committing an abhorrent crime." When you examine every argument and counter-argument in depth, you're left with one line: this kind of publication should be banned because it deserves to be banned, and should not be permitted because it is inherently bad and/or harmful. Either that, or "it's free speech so it's ok".

(I'm aware that I've deliberately chosen an extreme example for this little analogy; just my way of boiling the topic down to its fundamentals.)

You conveniently overlook the fact that unwilling participants were involved. That's a fundamental concern.

[bipper]

People are very impressionable. I mean, women even sync there periods if all living together. I mean, that is hardly fair alone. Let alone when you get twenty guys together and they have a loogies pitting contest, and it seems harmless. Despite the fact that you are on top of a 20 story building! A person with a sense of self is often fine. It is the real psycho's that do not post on final fantasy forums that we have to worry about.

L_N?

wat?

[Fatal Impurity]

Is there any other argument in favour of this game other than "it's freedom of speech, so it's good"? That stems from an admirable, but narrow premise: that the freedom of expression should be a virtually unlimited and universal freedom, regardless of what is being expressed. Why can't the public say "screw you, you're not bringing that :skull::skull::skull::skull: in here" when they're faced with something that is completely opposed to the common standards and morality? (NB: since censorship is strictly limited and regulated, this means you can't get widespread prohibition of anything that people simply dislike, which deflates that counter-argument.)

Well, they can say that. Very easily. Don't acquire/view/otherwise experience the item in question. People often seem to overlook that the free market is the ultimate in democracy. Also, it's dangerous and wildly optimistic to trust a government not to overstep the bounds when it comes to, well, pretty much anything actually. The fact that censorship would only apply to things which would be 'justly' censored today doesn't mean it won't be extended far further tomorrow.

Anyway, expression is inherently good. We don't know the Grand Ultimate Truth of things, no matter how much we think we do. Therefore, the society which allows the most ideas to circulate is the one most likely to hit upon the best way of operating. This is a pragmatic argument, so it's not one I personally believe in particularly, but still.


In an ideal world, people wouldn't be influenced by violent or sexual media. But we're not in an ideal world, and ideas can exert a harmful influence. Not just on the mentally unstable, either. This isn't hyperbole, but demonstrable fact. At its simplest and most benign, it's the reason advertising and product placement work so well.

I don't care. I honestly do not care if someone, unstable or not, is influenced by media. That is their problem to deal with. If they make it someone else's problem, then they will meet the same force of law and justice as anyone who spontaneously upped and stabbed a person.


If you take the line that "Everything should be uncensored unless it's libelous or slanderous', then you get left with a pretty sorry state of affairs. Suppose someone films himself abusing a child. He's rightly caught and imprisoned; should the police then market the film? It's only a recording of something that's already happened, after all, so no-one 'really' gets hurt by the recording itself. The victim's face could even be obscured or altered if there's a risk of defamation. To say that "it might encourage other people to do the same" is irrelevant, because responsible adults shouldn't be influenced by media. The perpetrator of the crime doesn't profit, so that eliminates the argument that "it allows someone to profit from committing an abhorrent crime." When you examine every argument and counter-argument in depth, you're left with one line: this kind of publication should be banned because it deserves to be banned, and should not be permitted because it is inherently bad and/or harmful. Either that, or "it's free speech so it's ok".

(I'm aware that I've deliberately chosen an extreme example for this little analogy; just my way of boiling the topic down to its fundamentals.)

You conveniently overlook the fact that unwilling participants were involved. That's a fundamental concern.

It's people who dont care about things like this that make our society a dangerous place to live...

[Spammerman]

People are very impressionable. I mean, women even sync there periods if all living together. I mean, that is hardly fair alone. Let alone when you get twenty guys together and they have a loogies pitting contest, and it seems harmless. Despite the fact that you are on top of a 20 story building! A person with a sense of self is often fine. It is the real psycho's that do not post on final fantasy forums that we have to worry about.

L_N?

wat?

Im assuming thats Lost_Number.

[NeoCracker]

Is there any other argument in favour of this game other than "it's freedom of speech, so it's good"? That stems from an admirable, but narrow premise: that the freedom of expression should be a virtually unlimited and universal freedom, regardless of what is being expressed. Why can't the public say "screw you, you're not bringing that :skull::skull::skull::skull: in here" when they're faced with something that is completely opposed to the common standards and morality? (NB: since censorship is strictly limited and regulated, this means you can't get widespread prohibition of anything that people simply dislike, which deflates that counter-argument.)

Well, they can say that. Very easily. Don't acquire/view/otherwise experience the item in question. People often seem to overlook that the free market is the ultimate in democracy. Also, it's dangerous and wildly optimistic to trust a government not to overstep the bounds when it comes to, well, pretty much anything actually. The fact that censorship would only apply to things which would be 'justly' censored today doesn't mean it won't be extended far further tomorrow.

Anyway, expression is inherently good. We don't know the Grand Ultimate Truth of things, no matter how much we think we do. Therefore, the society which allows the most ideas to circulate is the one most likely to hit upon the best way of operating. This is a pragmatic argument, so it's not one I personally believe in particularly, but still.


In an ideal world, people wouldn't be influenced by violent or sexual media. But we're not in an ideal world, and ideas can exert a harmful influence. Not just on the mentally unstable, either. This isn't hyperbole, but demonstrable fact. At its simplest and most benign, it's the reason advertising and product placement work so well.

I don't care. I honestly do not care if someone, unstable or not, is influenced by media. That is their problem to deal with. If they make it someone else's problem, then they will meet the same force of law and justice as anyone who spontaneously upped and stabbed a person.


If you take the line that "Everything should be uncensored unless it's libelous or slanderous', then you get left with a pretty sorry state of affairs. Suppose someone films himself abusing a child. He's rightly caught and imprisoned; should the police then market the film? It's only a recording of something that's already happened, after all, so no-one 'really' gets hurt by the recording itself. The victim's face could even be obscured or altered if there's a risk of defamation. To say that "it might encourage other people to do the same" is irrelevant, because responsible adults shouldn't be influenced by media. The perpetrator of the crime doesn't profit, so that eliminates the argument that "it allows someone to profit from committing an abhorrent crime." When you examine every argument and counter-argument in depth, you're left with one line: this kind of publication should be banned because it deserves to be banned, and should not be permitted because it is inherently bad and/or harmful. Either that, or "it's free speech so it's ok".

(I'm aware that I've deliberately chosen an extreme example for this little analogy; just my way of boiling the topic down to its fundamentals.)

You conveniently overlook the fact that unwilling participants were involved. That's a fundamental concern.

It's people who dont care about things like this that make our society a dangerous place to live...

I apologize on Milfs behalf for having enough faith in people to believe that they would not let a "Video Game" ruin society as we know it. I'll be sure to talk to him about his radical faith later.


Seriously though, how the hell does people like me and him make society dangerous? I apologize if you were being sarcastic.

[bipper]

Oh yeah, lost number... yeah.... *get's sniped*


Personally, I'm more upset at the game makers than at those banning it, ATM.

Let's face it, there have been people trying to get rid of video games pretty much ever since they were first created. These ridiculous, petty, idiotic individuals at least are doing what they think is best, even if they are totally wrong. They have failed because video games are, on the whole, quality entertainment. I can only hate people like that so much.

Then you get idiots who make games like this. Everything I have read or heard about this game seems to indicate that it has no entertainment value at all, and has no focus except pure visceral carnage. There may be some people who enjoy such junk, but I consider it total junk, and I am highly displeased with the company that made such a thing, since it was obvious to anyone with a brain that this game is exactly the sort of ammunition that those who attempt to get all video games banned love to use to further their goals.

I can totally agree with this. There is a level of personal responsibility that we must each adhere to in making a functional society. Granted, I am not sure if stripping away the freedom to create such monstrosities is necessary, however, this man should certainly be held to the fact that he is one sick fuck.

I also agree with the game being a rather bad move, pr wise. While controversy often makes you rich, and gets you laid (by something WITH a head); it just as often gets you ded.

I am not sure I can justify an outright ban though. I mean, I can see it rated GTFO, or some such- and hard to find - but banned? Please, there is far worse I could download for free off the internet. Dead or alive, anyone? :love: But yeah, it is all fun and games until someone looses a head.

[Fatal Impurity]

Is there any other argument in favour of this game other than "it's freedom of speech, so it's good"? That stems from an admirable, but narrow premise: that the freedom of expression should be a virtually unlimited and universal freedom, regardless of what is being expressed. Why can't the public say "screw you, you're not bringing that :skull::skull::skull::skull: in here" when they're faced with something that is completely opposed to the common standards and morality? (NB: since censorship is strictly limited and regulated, this means you can't get widespread prohibition of anything that people simply dislike, which deflates that counter-argument.)

Well, they can say that. Very easily. Don't acquire/view/otherwise experience the item in question. People often seem to overlook that the free market is the ultimate in democracy. Also, it's dangerous and wildly optimistic to trust a government not to overstep the bounds when it comes to, well, pretty much anything actually. The fact that censorship would only apply to things which would be 'justly' censored today doesn't mean it won't be extended far further tomorrow.

Anyway, expression is inherently good. We don't know the Grand Ultimate Truth of things, no matter how much we think we do. Therefore, the society which allows the most ideas to circulate is the one most likely to hit upon the best way of operating. This is a pragmatic argument, so it's not one I personally believe in particularly, but still.


In an ideal world, people wouldn't be influenced by violent or sexual media. But we're not in an ideal world, and ideas can exert a harmful influence. Not just on the mentally unstable, either. This isn't hyperbole, but demonstrable fact. At its simplest and most benign, it's the reason advertising and product placement work so well.

I don't care. I honestly do not care if someone, unstable or not, is influenced by media. That is their problem to deal with. If they make it someone else's problem, then they will meet the same force of law and justice as anyone who spontaneously upped and stabbed a person.


If you take the line that "Everything should be uncensored unless it's libelous or slanderous', then you get left with a pretty sorry state of affairs. Suppose someone films himself abusing a child. He's rightly caught and imprisoned; should the police then market the film? It's only a recording of something that's already happened, after all, so no-one 'really' gets hurt by the recording itself. The victim's face could even be obscured or altered if there's a risk of defamation. To say that "it might encourage other people to do the same" is irrelevant, because responsible adults shouldn't be influenced by media. The perpetrator of the crime doesn't profit, so that eliminates the argument that "it allows someone to profit from committing an abhorrent crime." When you examine every argument and counter-argument in depth, you're left with one line: this kind of publication should be banned because it deserves to be banned, and should not be permitted because it is inherently bad and/or harmful. Either that, or "it's free speech so it's ok".

(I'm aware that I've deliberately chosen an extreme example for this little analogy; just my way of boiling the topic down to its fundamentals.)

You conveniently overlook the fact that unwilling participants were involved. That's a fundamental concern.

It's people who dont care about things like this that make our society a dangerous place to live...

I apologize on Milfs behalf for having enough faith in people to believe that they would not let a "Video Game" ruin society as we know it. I'll be sure to talk to him about his radical faith later.


Seriously though, how the hell does people like me and him make society dangerous? I apologize if you were being sarcastic.

It's the people who dont care and wont do anything because of supposed "free speech" that let things get out of hand...i know this one game wont make a huge impact on society as we know it. But things like this are a slippery slope where if we let one person get away with it then other people will get away with it until certain things like legal sex ages and necrophilia laws wont exist anymore.

To put it simply, we shouldnt let sick things like whats contained in Manhunt 2 to be realeased as it gives other sick games/media a chance to get thier foot in the door. Hence more and more of these sick titles will be released until kids think (As impressionable as they are) that its ok to go fry a cat in a microwave or that its ok to behead a woman and proceed to defile her body.

[NeoCracker]

Its not a games job to keep kids from doing that. Its parents. If a parent can't instill in their childs head that those things are wrong, it is not the games fault at all.

It is Mature for a reason. Kids aren't even suppose to be playing it. If they get a hold of it, it is not the games fault. Its the retailer who sold a child the game without IDing them, or the parents fault for buying their kid a game without being positive their child can handle the content.

[Madame Adequate]

It's the people who dont care and wont do anything because of supposed "free speech" that let things get out of hand...i know this one game wont make a huge impact on society as we know it. But things like this are a slippery slope where if we let one person get away with it then other people will get away with it until certain things like legal sex ages and necrophilia laws wont exist anymore.

Logical fallacy. If everyone involved is consenting, there are no grounds for legal measures. That is all. Age of consent laws exist because people below a certain age aren't held to have the capacity to give informed consent. To suggest that because I want a piece of media to be available to sane and consenting adults means I want all laws abolished is so completely jejune that I don't quite know how to address the idea.


To put it simply, we shouldnt let sick things like whats contained in Manhunt 2 to be realeased as it gives other sick games/media a chance to get thier foot in the door. Hence more and more of these sick titles will be released until kids think (As impressionable as they are) that its ok to go fry a cat in a microwave or that its ok to behead a woman and proceed to defile her body.

Heaven forefend that a parent do their job and keep these things out of the hands of impressionable youngsters, and to actually monitor what their children are doing, and to educate them as to the difference between reality and fiction and what is acceptable and unacceptable in each!

Also, slipperly slope arguments are very dangerous:

Okay, Manhunt 2 might open the door to more disgusting games, so we'll ban it. But, what permitted Manhunt 2 in the first place? Well, stuff like Grand Theft Auto. So ban that, and then we're even safer from it.

But what permitted GTA? Well, probably things like Mortal Kombat. Let's ban that.

And what led to MK? Stuff like Halo and DooM, most likely - ban them. After all, these could lead to stuff that could lead to stuff that could make people go insane. Can't take that risk.

etc. etc. until you ban Sesame Street and Katamari Damacy.

[NeoCracker]

Me and milf, fighting togehter for the greater good of Freedom and responsability. It makes my heart feel happy.

Perhaps I should turn this into another story? The Adventures of Freadom. Milf the Destroyer and Neo the White Boy.

[bipper]

Its not a games job to keep kids from doing that. Its parents. If a parent can't instill in their childs head that those things are wrong, it is not the games fault at all.

Some adults are not even responsible enough to be considered adults. Some people are just flat out impressionable. Actually, a lot of people are. Thus BRAND MARKETING. Collectively, people set a trend of impressionability; regardless of those idealists and artisan's that are not impressionable, and have the perception to see past such influences.


Me and milf, fighting togehter for the greater good of Freedom and responsability. It makes my heart feel happy.


Freedom and responsibility, huh? That is the magic combination. To have freedom, one must have the responsibility to see the reasoning in laws, or whatever system we find will work (not putting any system on the pulpit at the moment.) The problem, right now, seems that we balance freedom with accountability. This basically says that freedoms can be hindered by certain individuals, as long as they are held accountable for their actions. Noble, but without the premeditated responsibility, I do not thing true freedom will ever be viable.

[NeoCracker]

Its not a games job to keep kids from doing that. Its parents. If a parent can't instill in their childs head that those things are wrong, it is not the games fault at all.

Some adults are not even responsible enough to be considered adults. Some people are just flat out impressionable. Actually, a lot of people are. Thus BRAND MARKETING. Collectively, people set a trend of impressionability; regardless of those idealists and artisan's that are not impressionable, and have the perception to see past such influences.


Me and milf, fighting togehter for the greater good of Freedom and responsability. It makes my heart feel happy.


Freedom and responsibility, huh? That is the magic combination. To have freedom, one must have the responsibility to see the reasoning in laws, or whatever system we find will work (not putting any system on the pulpit at the moment.) The problem, right now, seems that we balance freedom with accountability. This basically says that freedoms can be hindered by certain individuals, as long as they are held accountable for their actions. Noble, but without the premeditated responsibility, I do not thing true freedom will ever be viable.

The difference between Marketing and this is Marketing is intending to get you to do something, and is designed around making people to do certain things. There are subliminal things put into to make people do these things. I highly dought such things exist in Man Hunt.

And everyone knows True freedom isn't possible. Its more balancing which ones are most important, and keeping those freedoms.

[Madame Adequate]

Some adults are not even responsible enough to be considered adults. Some people are just flat out impressionable. Actually, a lot of people are. Thus BRAND MARKETING. Collectively, people set a trend of impressionability; regardless of those idealists and artisan's that are not impressionable, and have the perception to see past such influences.

Well yes, I see what you're saying, but if the influence were that strong - were are all the murders caused by Manhunt 1? By Grand Theft Auto? All the grisly murders caused by Mortal Kombat? And I mean the genuine thing, where the judge, cops, and shrinks agree that was the cause - not when Jack Thompson is trying to make more fuss, or when a grieving family is looking for something to blame.


Freedom and responsibility, huh? That is the magic combination. To have freedom, one must have the responsibility to see the reasoning in laws, or whatever system we find will work (not putting any system on the pulpit at the moment.) The problem, right now, seems that we balance freedom with accountability. This basically says that freedoms can be hindered by certain individuals, as long as they are held accountable for their actions. Noble, but without the premeditated responsibility, I do not thing true freedom will ever be viable.

I feel that responsibility can be forced onto people quite easily; make them free, ensure there are robust systems to intercept the criminals, and ensure people are aware of those systems. Everything else will follow naturally; the strong and intelligent will prosper, the responsible will remain free, and the weak, stupid, and irresponsble will usually suffer one way or another for it, whether through direct legal intervention, or simply through the fact that their actions make them difficult to employ at any level higher than janitor.

I'm certainly not willing to approve censorship on the unproven chance that people will be influenced to murder and mutilate by something; I'm not sure I'd be willing even if it were proven, because the numbers of people are so obviously miniscule even if EVERY crime attributed to the media is actually the media's fault.

[bipper]

The difference between Marketing and this is Marketing is intending to get you to do something, and is designed around making people to do certain things. There are subliminal things put into to make people do these things. I highly dought such things exist in Man Hunt.


That is why I speak of impressionable people. Straight out experiences, and games are more than a movie - they are a role played experience, often imprint themselves on peoples minds, and produce a simple inspiration, or basis of future thought. Perhaps if you watch a lot of horror movies, your artistic outlet would prolly become a bit darker.





And everyone knows True freedom isn't possible. Its more balancing which ones are most important, and keeping those freedoms.

I agree, that true freedom is not possible, and I say it is because of a lack of responsibility and objective thinking present in humans. I would not want such devices, as we are not made to be a collective of any sort. We are made to be individuals, social structure is made to be the collective we adhere to.



Well yes, I see what you're saying, but if the influence were that strong - were are all the murders caused by Manhunt 1? By Grand Theft Auto? All the grisly murders caused by Mortal Kombat? And I mean the genuine thing, where the judge, cops, and shrinks agree that was the cause - not when Jack Thompson is trying to make more fuss, or when a grieving family is looking for something to blame.


not directly. however, if such outlets are so prevalent in society, the influence would be reinforced, and when one has to call upon memory, influence, or experience to deal with some issue, they will do what they know. I would like (not to straw man, but to make comparison) to look at 'rap'. Now, specifically, gangsta rap. The effects of such role models and lifestyles really seemed to trickle well into the minds of peers both young and old. While it was based on a certain preexisting lifestyle, people would relate to these idolistic characters they see, and the impression would be made. Now, I know there are a lot of differences in this analogy, but my point is basically stated in how innocently impressionable people can be. We have role models, and we are all influenced on some level by them.


I feel that responsibility can be forced onto people quite easily; make them free, ensure there are robust systems to intercept the criminals, and ensure people are aware of those systems. Everything else will follow naturally; the strong and intelligent will prosper, the responsible will remain free, and the weak, stupid, and irresponsble will usually suffer one way or another for it, whether through direct legal intervention, or simply through the fact that their actions make them difficult to employ at any level higher than janitor.

I doubt it. Look at life. Look at how many people cannot manage credit, refuse to pay bills, encroach false debts on others and screw with systems in place to make a measly dollar. Look at the cliche' trailer trash and look at the vast population unwilling to take responsibility and more willing to live in a shepherded, socialistic, and policed state. There are far too many. I honestly can see where life can become too full of responsibility, where you would have to depend on a governing entity to provide. This is the very basis of society. Now, the government does need to back off on several censorship issues, I would agree - however, it is proven that people are incredibly impressionable.

Though, I do not think that a person would kill based on a single influence alone. I would rather accept that they will certainly be bestowed a new way to perceive the situation. This can be dangerous, especially when a person is corner (proverbially or literally) and he lashes out, saving the rational for later thought. To me, it is like bestowing dangerous knowledge to a person, like giving everyone a nuke and saying, "Do not use it, k?". Experiences are just like knowledge, they are great assets to have, but can be used for great good, or a great evil.

I refuse to make people suffer because they are impressionable. I think that is the basis of evil, is considering an attribute of a person as a complete weakness. Impressionability does have it's good points, I am sure. I am in the thought that every man on this planet has a good purpose, and that we are all equal in a balanced way. Not literally equal, but we are all important and can fill some niche in society. Even though I would love to bestow the same rights to all, I also realize that a few people of one 'type' can ruin it for the rest. This is where I find my conundrum. Do we A) take away freedom from those who cannot handle certain areas B) Take away the freedom from everybody C) police the matter; make game users register D) ake away freedom from those who cannot handle certain areas and subsidies them to create fairness. I am sure there are other options, as I am no expert, but I can see all these methodologies as having complete pros and cons.


I'm certainly not willing to approve censorship on the unproven chance that people will be influenced to murder and mutilate by something; I'm not sure I'd be willing even if it were proven, because the numbers of people are so obviously miniscule even if EVERY crime attributed to the media is actually the media's fault.

Yeah, I am not for the ban either; I would not mind a stricter regulation on the game for sure. Nothing further than ID present on game purchase to prove that you are over a certain age. I am just saying that I can totally understand a person wanting to ban it. It makes sense to me; though I find it hard to justify at the same time. Too much liability flying around with freedom. Everyone wants the freedom, and everyone wants to be right/perfect as they think they are. This creates turbulence in policing freedom. Though, I feel that policing is a necessity, and natural to human society.

[Madame Adequate]

I doubt it. Look at life. Look at how many people cannot manage credit, refuse to pay bills, encroach false debts on others and screw with systems in place to make a measly dollar. Look at the cliche' trailer trash and look at the vast population unwilling to take responsibility and more willing to live in a shepherded, socialistic, and policed state. There are far too many. I honestly can see where life can become too full of responsibility, where you would have to depend on a governing entity to provide. This is the very basis of society. Now, the government does need to back off on several censorship issues, I would agree - however, it is proven that people are incredibly impressionable.

The way I see it, most of those people are feckless and irresponsible precisely because they can afford to be. The government will bail them out if they screw up. I've seen that exact thing happening here in England. People do no take personal responsibility, and if something goes wrong, it is up to some other power to both take the blame, and fix the mess. That has extended far further, so people are irresponsible in almost every area of life. I don't care about that in and of itself, but society forces me to have an interest in it by forcing me to fund the healthcare, schooling, etc. of everyone else. Anyway, by removing these crutches, people might not actually become more responsible - but the successful will do better, and end up by simply overtaking those who don't act in a reasonably wise manner, and the matter will eventually be resolved in that way.

[bipper]

I doubt it. Look at life. Look at how many people cannot manage credit, refuse to pay bills, encroach false debts on others and screw with systems in place to make a measly dollar. Look at the cliche' trailer trash and look at the vast population unwilling to take responsibility and more willing to live in a shepherded, socialistic, and policed state. There are far too many. I honestly can see where life can become too full of responsibility, where you would have to depend on a governing entity to provide. This is the very basis of society. Now, the government does need to back off on several censorship issues, I would agree - however, it is proven that people are incredibly impressionable.

The way I see it, most of those people are feckless and irresponsible precisely because they can afford to be. The government will bail them out if they screw up. I've seen that exact thing happening here in England. People do no take personal responsibility, and if something goes wrong, it is up to some other power to both take the blame, and fix the mess. That has extended far further, so people are irresponsible in almost every area of life. I don't care about that in and of itself, but society forces me to have an interest in it by forcing me to fund the healthcare, schooling, etc. of everyone else. Anyway, by removing these crutches, people might not actually become more responsible - but the successful will do better, and end up by simply overtaking those who don't act in a reasonably wise manner, and the matter will eventually be resolved in that way.

yeah, all really good points, but I do not think that all people lack responsability for the sake that they can afford to. I mean, I see people get there kids taken away, abuse their kids and mal-nourish them, people not go to FREE clinics when available. I see too much out right laziness, to have any faith in an Archaic style government correctly protecting people. Sadly, some need protection, and even then they often won't help themselves. They are free to do so, but they are also free to have a poverty lifestyle (to some point). I think just forcing these people into a social structure similar to the English industrial revolution is certainly not the answer. Debtor jail, brim full orphanages, and poverty everywhere. It is a puristic welfare state that takes care of the populace, and the populace is important to the higher class, as well as low class. Like I said earlier, we all have niches to fill, and we need people we deem as dumber, lesser peoples. We rely on them, and thusly pay them.

So when we need these people, and yet these same impressionable people happen to easily fallow suit of there digital experiences, what do we do from there? Back to the conundrum mentioned above. Give them all freedoms, taketh away, etc.

[Ashley Schovitz]

I don't see why with all the bannings just because it's a violent game. The character you play as in the game doesn't even like to kill he kills because he has to. from previews I've read it's trying to improve from the original in a few ways, so it might not suck, but that's not the point. It possibly can't be that terrible to pull an AO rating. Well it least people here in America can still get it.

[aquatius]

Oh well, I wasn't going to get it anyways.