Manhunt 2 Banned in UK

[Iain]

Sorry for another post, but it looks like the game is being banned in the Republic as well. Guess I will have to hope the continental games keep the English language option in light of this.

This is like a throwbak to the Thatcher days when you had to smuggle violent films into the country if you wanted to watch them.

I really am quite outraged this could still happen here. We were supposed to be well past this kind of nonsense.

[JustLikeHeaven1]

[QUOTE=Iain]Damn, this virtually never happens here. Do you have a link for this? I wasn't going to bother with the game because it wasn't my thing, but I feel like I should buy it on a point of principle now. I guess I will get it from Ireland.[/QUOTE]

Here is a link for you...

http://kotaku.com/gaming/breaking/manhunt-2-banned-in-uk-270070.php

Part of the reason for the UK banning is due to a murder that happened a few years ago, where the parents blamed Manhunt for the death of their son...Anybody remember that story?

[Quiet Flight]

I remember that story. I'm pretty sure the killer never had or played manhunt. The victim is the one who had it. I wonder why they never mention that part.


Unless I'm totally wrong

[Iain]

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven] Here is a link for you... http://kotaku.com/gaming/breaking/manhunt-2-banned-in-uk-270070.php Part of the reason for the UK banning is due to a murder that happened a few years ago, where the parents blamed Manhunt for the death of their son...Anybody remember that story? [/QUOTE]That was just silly tabloid hype. The killers had never played the game. Only the victim had.

Anyway, this is bad. It is not exactly hard to buy something in from Europe. But with the UK and Ireland already having banned it and Germany and Australia certain to follow, you wonder if they will bother with a PAL/SECAM release at all. Nothing ever gets banned in France, and it will definitely clear in places like Spain and Itally too, and presumably Scandinavia and New Zealand, but with the biggest PAL markets banning it, this will be problematic.

Hopefully it goes to the European Court Of Human Rights. Really though I am genuinely shocked that this can still happen here. The coutry has become so Liberal with film and videogame classification that I thought we were past the dark days of Magie and her "video nasties"

[m0zart1]

[QUOTE=Iain]and presumably Scandinavia and New Zealand, but with the biggest PAL markets banning it, this will be problematic.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to think so, but with New Zealand banning even posession of the original game, it seems kind of likely that they will ban this one too.

[Steerforth]

Just a question for the people who support this game, some say on general principal, some because they think it is a valid art form :

1. Do you believe any game can go to far to warrant bans and cendorship? If so, what would it take?

2. There was a JFK assination simulator made a while back, do you support that?

3. Do you ever wonder if demanding nothing from your fellow man in terms of their personal conduct is a sign of fear or weakness on your part, or are you just paranoid that someone would demand it from you?

4.Isn't one purpose of government to decide what they let influence their society, and a vital part of maintaining law and order? I mean, if you are so in love with violence and desire an impotent central government, would not Iraq look like a paradise to you? If the majority of society deems this game worthless, as in the UK, who are you as an individual to place you own self serving wants in front of the good of your country? We're talking rule of law here, people, it sometimes involves sacrifice. It seems to me this should be a very easy sacrifice to make!

5. Is this game really about "art", or is it as I believe, a cheap, cynical attempt at making the most violent game out there for its own sake, to atttract attention and invariably good reviews because this is the sort of content the videogame culture revels in? Plus it becaomes irresistable to rebelious youth. Honestly, what would GTA sales look like without under 18 sales? I  mean, come on. It is quite possible there is solid gameplay underneathe it all, but when you marry it so completely to casual sadism, it loses its worth to all possible players.

Please answer any or all, or I guess you can just tell me to get screwed.

But I do believe this, and I put it into words as best as I could. I get a kick out of people who love to knock down Christianity and stand on the failures of the church as a reflection of the Faith as a whole. Please be patient. We are starting to see the seeds of the secular religion of moral relativity growing stronger, and you have not seen anything yet.

[Anayo1]

I'm not sure what to say about this. I admit I'm biased toward giving a lofty nod of my head to the British government, since Manhunt 2 is a gruesome game I would NOT want in my household. I find myself growing increasingly and increasingly separate from mainstream entertainment these days. Someone here posted earlier "politicians still view video games as a medium for children"; it doesn't really matter if you're a child or not, it matters what your moral standards are and this shows in society these days. Then again, I'm not sure what to think about the government reaching in and enforcing that sort of thing. Can that lead to other big brotherish stuff?

[m0zart1]

[QUOTE=Steerforth]Just a question for the people who support this game, some say on general principal, some because they think it is a valid art form :[/QUOTE]

There's a difference between supporting a game and supporting someone's right to make/buy/sell said game.  There's also no reason why a Governing body can decide what is and is not art.

[QUOTE=Steerforth]1. Do you believe any game can go to far to warrant bans and cendorship? If so, what would it take?[/QUOTE]

Since a video game is never reality, the answer would be no.

[QUOTE=Steerforth]2. There was a JFK assination simulator made a while back, do you support that?[/QUOTE]

Yes.  I can guarantee you that someone killing JFK in a simulator is merely killing a pixelated form of him -- not a person at all.  There's no violation of anyone's rights involved, and therefore to actively ban it would be to actively violate the rights of those who wanted to make/buy/sell such a game.

[QUOTE=Steerforth]3. Do you ever wonder if demanding nothing from your fellow man in terms of their personal conduct is a sign of fear or weakness on your part, or are you just paranoid that someone would demand it from you?[/QUOTE]

I think we have a right to be paranoid when someone decides for others what is acceptible to partake of when that activity doesn't naturally violate the rights of others.  In short, I don't think paranoia about this is anything like bad -- it's very wise to be paranoid about intrusive Governments banning things that only depict violence rather than representing real acts.

[QUOTE=Steerforth]4.Isn't one purpose of government to decide what they let influence their society, and a vital part of maintaining law and order?[/QUOTE]

No, absolutely not.  The purpose of Government is protect individual rights, allowing individuals to make their own decisions while insisting that those same individuals never violate the equal rights of others.  That overarching purpose of Government cannot be allowed to become contradictory, i.e. by allowing Government to introduce violation of rights in circumstances where they see fit, evne if that means they can circumvent some perceived future violence by doing so.  Governments are, after all, just run by men with the same kinds of imperfect motives that any other operation can be executed by.  In many cases, IMO, Government being the focus of political power just makes it even more dangerous to entrust it with future expansions.

[QUOTE=Steerforth]We're talking rule of law here, people, it sometimes involves sacrifice. It seems to me this should be a very easy sacrifice to make![/QUOTE]

And if the sacrifice you must make to the rule of law is something that is unacceptible to you personally, is that a sacrifice that too must be made?  Rule of law is meant to PROTECT RIGHTS, not violate them.  If "rule of law" is out to violate rights, then it's little better than the results we created a system of "rule of law" to protect us from in the first place.

Law is just a term used to describe public policies to justify the collective application of force -- and as such it is a neutral vessel in and of itself.  It doesn't somehow suspend itself from ethical responsibilities just because it declares some things as worthy of force.  If the situation in question doesn't ethically call for the use of force by objective criteria, then no amount of legalism is going to make the situation ethically call for the use of force, and no number of Government declarations or votes are going to make it ethical to apply force where it isn't ethically appropriate to do so.  I've said this before, but as repitition is the best form of emphasis, I'll go ahead and say it again:  "Law", like any form of policy, can be the means by which rights are protected, or it can be the means by which human beings herd other human beings into cattle cars.  It is always a means to an end and NEVER an end in itself.  Therefore it behooves all of us to make sure that it is being applied in appropriate ways.  Using it to violate rights is never appropriate.

Just another aside, I really do hate it when any person proposing a new system or some new addendum to that system starts talking about sacrifices that must be made, as if treating people as so many eggs to be broken for his own private omelet.  Seriously, that kind of comparison should be the first indication that someone who cries for new application of force is really up to no good.

[QUOTE=Steerforth]5. Is this game really about "art", or is it as I believe, a cheap, cynical attempt at making the most violent game out there for its own sake, to atttract attention and invariably good reviews because this is the sort of content the videogame culture revels in? Plus it becaomes irresistable to rebelious youth. Honestly, what would GTA sales look like without under 18 sales? I  mean, come on. It is quite possible there is solid gameplay underneathe it all, but when you marry it so completely to casual sadism, it loses its worth to all possible players.[/QUOTE]

Manhunt had a very artistic purpose behind it -- to express the boundaries of a particular ethical dilemma.  As I pointed out here before, I tried to play it.

What interested me about Manhunt wasn't how grotesque it was going to be or how I would get to pretend to kill people (something I am not interested in doing as a hobby), rather those things are what kept me from being able to finish the game.  I was more interested in the odd situation: murderer gets put in a staged area where murder is being forced on him.  Is it his responsibliity to find another way, knowing that it will almost certainly cost him his life?  This "impossible situation" is a common one discussed in philosophical circles, as it introduces a situation where ethical choices are impossible.  Add to the mix that he would have died anyway in the execution chamber, and that this unfair situation not only subjects him to something not of his own choosing, but also effectively saves his life, and it really starts to cloud the issue.  That's a much more interesting scenario to me than just the standard "escape from pursuers" scenario.  And I'd have been all for playing it if I could have stomached it personally, just to see if there was a resolution that dealt with some of those finer issues.

As I've also said before, the brutality of the violence is part of the reason why I don't think the artistic point was made well for me, especially since I couldn't stomach it.  But I've heard others tell me directly that the violence and brutality of it was what made the situation more tenable, more realistic, and allowed them to see it for what it is.  After all, in situations like this we are discussing the results of violence, and who is responsible for violence in particular situations from the principles laid out by an objective ethical system.  For some of us, we are quite happy to deal in the abstract, but I can easily see that doing so also has the effect of watering down the process.  Depending on the personality type and experiences of the individual(s) doing the meandering, the absence of realism can have a bad effect on his/their overall conclusions.

In that same regard, I've often wondered how many lawmakers could really pass some of their more intrusive and human-rights-abusive laws if they were forced to watch the result of those actions -- such as how many lives those laws ruin as repayment for no actual harm being done to any existing individual.  For instance, how many lawmakers would pass laws having property taken away without trial for minor drug offenses if they had to see grown adults being thrown out of their own houses for offenses their teenage sons and daughters were caught doing in the act?  Or black people on the Louisiana highways losing their paychecks they just cashed because some cop pulled them over and confiscated the money on mere suspicion that drugs may have been involved (a common practice throughout the country, believe it or not).

[QUOTE=Steerforth]Please answer any or all, or I guess you can just tell me to get screwed. [/QUOTE]

Those two choices are not mutually exclusive.

[QUOTE=Steerforth]But I do believe this, and I put it into words as best as I could. I get a kick out of people who love to knock down Christianity and stand on the failures of the church as a reflection of the Faith as a whole. Please be patient. We are starting to see the seeds of the secular religion of moral relativity growing stronger, and you have not seen anything yet.[/QUOTE]

I don't knock Christianity at all, as I've said before.  But if Christianity can be a force in seeking Government bans of this sort based on their own religious ideas and not objective ethical principles, then I may start kicking sometime in the future.

Before you start assuming the worst from me in that regard, please remember that movies like "The Passion" made their point all the more powerfully by exposing even Christians to the gruesome reality of the price that they believe Christ had to pay for their sins.  Yet there were leftists who derided the film and even those who wanted it banned for, among many silly reasons like supposed anti-semitism and that it was a subject they don't consider to be art, the fact that they saw it as too gruesome.  You can't have it both ways -- either people are free to express themselves in ways that they believe get their points across, or they aren't.  And if what you want is the latter -- I'll "pray for your soul".

[m0zart1]

[QUOTE=Anayo]I'm not sure what to say about this. I admit I'm biased toward giving a lofty nod of my head to the British government, since Manhunt 2 is a gruesome game I would NOT want in my household. I find myself growing increasingly and increasingly separate from mainstream entertainment these days. Someone here posted earlier "politicians still view video games as a medium for children"; it doesn't really matter if you're a child or not, it matters what your moral standards are and this shows in society these days. Then again, I'm not sure what to think about the government reaching in and enforcing that sort of thing. Can that lead to other big brotherish stuff?[/QUOTE]

I think the issue is a little bit tougher than that.  Your values and the values of others may never be reflected in a society, including a society that attempts to reflect the values of the biggest group.  Ultimately, especially in a system as pervasive as democracy, that's all you can ever hope for without the kind of republican limitations that constitutions put on those decisions.  For people who want to keep their values safe at home, it is wildly important that Government not be the one defining such values.  The most it should be doing is protecting individuals from violations of their rights.  This is itself a value judgement, but it naturally excludes itself to any situation that individuals choose and consent to themselves, rather than trying to be an "all inclusive decision maker" for every human being alive under its mantra.

Government should be protecting your right not to have this game at home.  And it should be protecting the right of someone who does want it.  What it should never do is decide that this game isn't appropriate for adults, at least so long as the game itself is still excluding itself to the figurative, and represents no actual harm to any living individual.

[Iain]

[QUOTE=m0zart][QUOTE=Iain]and presumably Scandinavia and New Zealand, but with the biggest PAL markets banning it, this will be problematic.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to think so, but with New Zealand banning even posession of the original game, it seems kind of likely that they will ban this one too.
[/QUOTE]Did they? Damn, they usually know better than that. Another PAL market ruled out. Like I say there is no chance of countries like France banning it, but whether that will be enough to ensure release is open to question. As long as it comes out in a PAL territory though I will defintely buy it. Even if it requires breaking the law (though I doubt it will be illegal to ship it from abroad). I wasn't going to bother before. I have seen quite enough nasty things in life to bother with them in videogames thank you very much, but now I have to have this on point of principle.