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

[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 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?

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.

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 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 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 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 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 smurf.

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? 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 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.