Rockstar Appeals British Ban on Manhunt 2 56
1up is reporting (via MCV) that Rockstar has decided to appeal the BBFC ruling on their uber-violent Manhunt 2 title. The 'next step' is to get a hearing scheduled, which will allow the game to be demo'd and arguments given. "Rockstar Games had been given six weeks to appeal the decision, and with that opportunity about to expire, the company lodged its formal appeal yesterday ... The appeal was filed with the Video Appeals Committee, which can overturn the BBFC decision. As noted in our first article about the ban, the VAC overturned the BBFC's ban of Carmageddon back in 1997, giving Rockstar a glimmer of hope in its current situation."
Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Informative)
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
So they can ban speech "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."... Talk about catch-all.
So basicly the poster is right. There is no garantee of freedom of speech in England. Virtually anything can be argued to fall under one of those categories.
Re: (Score:2)
It's important to remember that the onus is on the accuser/censor/banning body/whatever to show that the offending material falls into one of those categories. So if the person whose freedom of speech is being impeded challenges it (as Rockstar now are) it's should actually be pretty damn difficult for the BBFC to prove that it does cross one of those lines.
Again though:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if there's something specific you're referring to in Poland. I believe protection of homosexuals would be covered by Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination). Whether it's correctly enforced or not is another matter, but if so that's a problem with the EU and that particular national government, not with the Convention itself.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrast this to the First Amendment, which has never been enforced as written and which will never be enforced as written, as it provides no room for compromise of any kind, as with most of the Bill of Rights.
While you are correct in that it is a catch-all, it is not as wide a catch-all as you are suggesting it to be. Only a few of those exemptions can be widely applied, and even then, they must undergo judicial scrutiny to be applied.
With the First Amendment, the judiciary can come up with whatever exemptions it feels like- and does.
Re: (Score:2)
"The Republic of Theoneandonlystan guarantees freedom of speech, thought, and action to all persons, except when it doesn't." Legally plausible to follow, but not a good guarantee of rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying a guarantee of rights that sounds perfect but is never, and can never, be enforced is any better? At least the Europeans are honest with themselves.
First of all, the First Amendment is not "enforced" per say. The First Amendment is supposed to be "respected", in that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting speech. The First Amendments is perfectly functional: If the government simply refuses to regulate speech and expression, it is simple as that. It isn't something like "stopping crime" that might not be possible, even if the government chooses to pursue that goal. Any violation of the First Amendment by the U.S. government is b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, while you might believe the government could simply refuse to restrict and regulate speech, in practice this simply isn't true. Filing false tax returns? Freedom of speech! Inciting riots? Freedom of speech! Passing classified data to the enemy? Freedom of speech! Extortion? Freedom of speech!
Actually, I think the first amendment SHOULD apply to all these things.
Filing false tax returns? The tax laws are so complicated, that anyone could accidently and innocently file a false tax return. It shouldn't be a crime. Inciting riots? There were many people who tried to ban Malcolm X, The Black Panthers, and crazily enough even Martin Luther King from speaking arguing they would incite a riot. Yet all these people had important things to say, and America is better off that they said it. Passing classi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Some might be fascinated by the violence at fi
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree that the original manhunt wasn't particularly artful. However, it is entirely possible (considering what I've read by journalists who have played the game) that Manhunt 2 might be artistic in a demented, horrific fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Given everything I've learned about Rockstar Games from the media, I'd assume their argument would have to be:
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, carmageddon... (Score:4, Funny)
For the uninitiated, they decided to ban the original Carmageddon because one of your goals was to run down pixelated pedestrians in a uniform-but-still-gorey shower of blood. So, to appease those who would protect our values by not letting us run over people in a video game, they changed it so all the pedestrians became zombies, and their blood splatter was now green.
Because, as we all know, it's much less damaging to our youth to imagine that the entire world is infested with the walking undead.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway... that saved lives... well, not really.
Re: (Score:1)
however, there was an easy way to change that in one of the config / ini files (or a command line switch, etc)
oh the memories....i wish they'd make an updated version of carmageddon (or something like it).
The Coyote and The Road Runner (Score:4, Insightful)
Carmageddon was staged as a cartoon.
The pedestrian targets and obstacles never allowed to become too real.
Manhunt 2 is unmistakably derived from the sadistic and malign torture porn flicks - exploitation films - like Saw and Hostel.
If you can't see that distinction - if you can't make that distinction - then the critics of video game violence have won their point.
Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Well both of those movies, Saw and Hostel, received "R" ratings in the U.S., considered restricted for 17 and up.
So why shouldn't Manhunt 2 receive the comparative rating (for games) of "M" for Mature, which is also identically restricted to 17 and up?
And whether or not you personally feel those movies were "maligned", they were actually quite popular with the intended audience that CHOSE to watch them. Why should your personal judgement override Manhunt 2's intended audience's CHOICE to play it?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The Coyote and The Road Runner (Score:5, Insightful)
"violent proclivities"? welcome to the human race. Watch a football game lately? How about boxing? Those are actual really-real people beating each other to a bloody pulp, resulting occasionally in actually-actual death.
Yet those spectacles are approved for all ages.
Elevating FICTIONAL violence as more harmful or indecent than ACTUAL violence is nonsensical. Unlike you, I can't speak for every single person who views or plays violent media. But I can speak for myself. I'm a well-educated, well-adjusted, non-violent adult, who often enjoys viewing or playing fictionalized media with dark and/or violent content. So far, my "neuroses" have gone hungry. My "violent proclivities" remain buried, and mostly likely fictional.
I can't stand football or boxing, though. Too violent. And actually realistic. In a really-real way.
If you don't like it, don't play it or watch it, and be a parent to your children and take responsibility for what they play and watch. But leave MY responsibility to ME.
[PS: "AO" rating effectively does not exist, since retail chains won't carry an AO game, in the same way that movie theatres won't show an "X" rated movie. Since it's thus financially impossible to release an AO rated game, that rating effectively blocks a game from being released. Which may be fine for your nanny-world, but in my really-real world, I'd rather make that choice for myself.]
Re: (Score:2)
I can't remember any instance of a football player dying from physical contact on the field. It may have happened once or twice, but it would be a freak accident, not a result of regular contact. Oh, and btw, have YOU watched a football game lately? Because "beating each other to a bloody pulp" is kind of against the rules.
As for boxing,
Re: (Score:1)
How can you see that as aggressive? Do capital letters trigger some primal fear in you?
Re: (Score:1)
The brutal, savage sport that was football (Score:4, Informative)
The violence of the college game came within a hair of destroying American football in 1905 - 23 deaths - and 1909:
In a match between Harvard and West Point, the Army captain, Eugene Byrne, exhausted by continual plays to his side of the line, was fatally injured. Earl Wilson of the Naval Academy was paralyzed and later died as a result of a flying tackle. And the University of Virginia's halfback Archer Christian died after a game against Georgetown, probably from a cerebral hemorrhage suffered in a plunge through the line. "Does the public need any more proof," wrote the Washington Post, "that football is a brutal, savage, murderous sport? Is it necessary to kill many more promising young men before the game is revised or stopped altogether?" At both Georgetown and Virginia, football was suspended for the remainder of the season, and the District of Columbia school system banned it altogether. Even Col. John Mosby, the old Confederate raider, used Christian's death to rail against football as "murder." Inventing Modern Football [americanheritage.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for boxing, yeah, it's a barbaric "sport" that really has no place in a civilized society. It's the modern-day equivalent of the Roman gladiators.
Except it's performed by consenting adults instead of conscripted prisoners and is specifically set up to avoid fatalities or permanent injuries instead of a fight to the death, you're exactly correct. Of course, being performed by consenting adults and not being set up specifically to have a death at the end are the defining features. By your logic, soccer should be illegal because it resembles ancient Aztec soccer, in which the losing team was sacrificed to the gods at the end.
And, considering that all
Re: (Score:1)
People are a product of their culture, but their behaviour is mostly shaped by the real parts of their culture - family, school, church, day to day activities, not by the make-believe parts, the things they see on television or in games. You use the example of America's high crime rate, but you also mention Japan, which has a trem
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, interestingly to my point. With the written word, it seems anything goes. Why do none of these issues come up with the novel, or the non-fiction? Imagery many
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Malign [webster.com]
1 a : evil in nature, influence, or effect. malignant.
2 : having or showing intense often vicious ill will. sinister. [webster.com]
The audience has faded to black. The genre summer box office poison. Captivity [imdb.com] grossed $2.6 million. Rockstar tried to catch the wave and missed.
. Why should your personal judgment override Manhunt 2's intended audience's CHOIC
Re: (Score:1)
Bring it on!!!
I think I'm just about able to stop myself from murdering anyone after playing this game, I doubt I'll even have any nightmares!
Because the UK is not part of USA (yet!) (Score:2)
So why shouldn't Manhunt 2 receive the comparative rating (for games) of "M" for Mature, which is also identically restricted to 17 and up?"
Because the UK might have a different cultural approach than the USA? Just because a USA ratings authority decides on how to rate movies and video games doesn't mean the UK has to follow the same guidelines. UK is not part of the USA
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the UK is so far playing much more fast and loose with civil liberties, that is true. So I guess it isn't surprising in a country with over four MILLION closed ci
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed - but this argument can be used about almost anything. So, if I CHOOSE to use illegal drugs, why should I not be allowed? The fact is that your right to choose according to your whim and personal preference is not considered as important as eg. the impact it would have on society in general if certain things - like drugs, child abuse and video games that glorify extreme violence - were just set free. This ma
Re: (Score:2)