@Matthew

Just so you know my post wasn't meant to bash the U.K. (i like Britain and British people, and i live in Canada which was a British colony at one time and still has Queen Elizabeth as the head of state), just what you said in your post about the BBFC being like a republic and the majority deciding what's media is o.k. or not o.k. for all it's citizens. I like Britain, but i loath censorship, no matter what country and no matter where it is.

Oh and if you're looking for a British anti-censorship site Melonfarmers.co.uk is pretty cool.

I think the point that needs to be addressed in Manhunt 2 to pass the BBFC is context, not gore.

There was a CVG article which I can't be arsed to find which made a point of noting that some gruesome killings seemed unnecessary and for the sake of progress, whereas in Manhunt 1 practically everything was justified because you're character was forced into these situations, and most of the enemies were after you first, something which has changed for Manhunt 2 judging from previews.

Personally, I would have no sympathy for the Manhunt franchise or Rockstar if this game had come to market and flopped horribly. But I do sympathize with Rockstar in the fact that they cannot even release this game.

It is upsetting that it cannot be released.

On the BBFC thing: They are not a government agency. The ratings are backed by law which is where the confusion is coming from. They have the power to say that a game cannot be released. That is wrong.

"This is a game that has gone a bit too far in it’s depictions of violence and such and has been found out of bounds of an 18 rating, which has been consulted multiple times with meetings and talks with the general public about the borders of the ratings themselves. This isn’t reression or denial of expression, simply a game that has gone too far or not made its"

What the fuck? How is that not censorship. How the fuck is that not the very bare basic definition of censorship? I don't know what else to say to you. Holy fuck, you don't even know what censorship is do you?

But for the sake of argument what do you call it when a group prohibits media from the general public?

Cannot sell the games under force of law? That sounds awfully governmental to me. Either the British Government has the BBFC on a leash or the other way around. One way or another its sounds like some back room hankey-pankey is going on.

@Erik,

"Well that clears a lot of things up. So the UK has less freedom of expression. As long as you are happy with that, though I can’t see how you would be. Me? I’m happy to live in a country where even troglodytes like Thompson and Pandralisk can say their piece. "

Im very happy with that, thanks. Over here we have far less problems with racism than you do in the states, because people understand that they are not allowed to use hate speech and incite violence through public statements. It sends the message that racism is wrong and unacceptable, and we as a society will not tolerate it. I'll take that any day, over a society where your right to be an openly retarded bigot is protected by law.

Incidentally, there is nothing that either Thompson or Pandalisk have said (that ive seen) that would not be allowed over here however. There are no controls over people rights to free debate and differing opinion, the protections offered by law only come into play when people resort to open discrimination and hate speech against racial or religious groups or based on gender or disability. Maybe the total freedom you defend so strongly wouldnt seem quite as wonderful if you were a black man watching a klan rally go past, or the parent of a dead soldier watching some hatemonger disrupt your kids funeral.

Rockstar's argument is false; the BBFC will similarly ban movies if they see the need to. Playing the victim card here is completely inappropriate.

lame! though i assume if people really want to play it they will simply import it? tbh this really needs a PC release ¬.¬

While I haven't seen the Saw movies, I assume that, like most horror movies, we, the viewers, and the non-psycho characters depicted are fully aware that the violence and sadism being perpetrated is 'wrong'. While I also haven't seen Manhunt 2 running (only read previewers' opinions) I assume that the BBFC's beef with it is that the protagonist is not depicted as an amoral psycho sadistically inflicting violence on others - he's depicted as an identifiable 'everyman' inflicting this manner of violence as a matter of course.

@Bigglesworth

A very sensible post that!

Indeed the BBFC have clearly stated it is not the level of violence that has caused it to be banned (hence why toning the violence down by R* hasn't worked), but rather it is the tone of unremitting casual sadism.

At least with films like Saw you are expected (or at least have the oppertunity) to empathise with the victims, rather than the psyco.

i agree with the bbfc, though i'm not sure if the fact that there's no british rating, means that shops cant import ESRB rated games? can anyone clarify?

@Rellik San,

Please. The BBFC wont let you have one sick title and now the countries going to the dogs? Meh..


@Bloodharp,

The Thomas Harris novels, and the films based on them, explore a series of complex themes, taking the reader on a moral trip between feeling sympathy for a protagonist who is led into his mental problems due to the sadistic death of his sibling, and horror at the acts he carries out. Not to mention of course the complex sexual undertones between Lector and Starling. In that kind of context, an act of gratuitious violence can have meaning and purpose.

Has ANYONE got the slightest shred of proof yet that Manhunt 2 offers any kind of depth, or indeed evidence that it is anything more than the twisted gore fest with new interactive slaughter controls(tm) that many of us presumed it was from the outset?

If not, then forgive me if I dont feel any desire to join a fight in the name of censorship thats actually about you guys getting to mash a characters brains in with a bat because its controversial and makes you feel cool and edgy.

"Bah, the UK is a terrible place for gaming at the moment."

So the entire gaming scene is terrible because a single game can't reach the market. No melodrama there then. The BBFC banned La Blue Girl in 1996 and I hear the anime industry in the UK hasnt been the same since.

@Bigglesworth

Well, since he's in an asylum, I'm assuming meaning a mental hospital, that would mean that he would be among psychopaths, this would be killing in self defense.

@Kentonio:
I suppose the point is moot, but I'll chip in my two cents because I've got nothing better to do right this moment.

Even if you disagree with this particular title, the idea that a third party has the authority to go "No, you can't have this because we feel it might be hazardous to someone else" should be considered horrid in every sense of the word. The instant someone else removes the choice from the public's hands, there should be a cry of outrage.

The BBFC has (and not for the first time, apparently) basically told you that you don't have the mental capacity to decide whether this game is appropriate for you in provate use, or that you have the fortitude to play it without going on a rampage of some kind.

It is not the individual argument that you should be considering, it's censorship as a whole.

"The BBFC has (and not for the first time, apparently) basically told you that you don’t have the mental capacity to decide whether this game is appropriate for you in provate use, or that you have the fortitude to play it without going on a rampage of some kind."

No, they haven't.

Ugh...here we go again...

The BBFC is not, repeat, NOT, a government organisation. It is not owned, organised or regulated by the house of commons, the house of lords, the home office, the royal family or any political organisation. It is in fact, as stated by their website www.bbfc.co.uk:

'an independent, non-governmental body, which has classified cinema films since it was set up in 1912, and videos since the passing of the Video Recordings Act in 1984.'

The only political matter behind the BBFC is that they were designated by the 1984 Video Recordings Act to be the authority to classify age ratings, 'charged with applying the new test of 'suitability for viewing in the home''.

This hasn't got anything to do with the government, as the BBFC are not associated with them. Please bear that in mind when talking about government censorship conspiracy theories...

The gestapo of Judeo-Christian values rapes the rights of another aspect of media. I won't waste time pointing out the usual contradiction here. (ie, Christian divine command theory -- rooted in the belief in a genocidal, child-killing, "God").

You think these facist "moralistic" pigs would realize that the goverment cannot decide the morality of a paticular peice of media. Firstly, their bullshit divine-command "values" amount to little more than a pile of shit shoveled into a great pile of differing opinion. Censoring the game denies individuals to make up their own minds on the subject, robbing people of the very right to govern their own actions. If these bible thumping idiots would shut their mouths long enough, they might realize that other factors are responsible for violence: poverty, religious fanatacism, cut-throat capitalism, racism.

“Bah, the UK is a terrible place for gaming at the moment.”

And yeah, the entire gaming scene sucks when developers must cower before a government censorship board; regulating their content in ways that make content that is EXPLICITLY FOR ADULTS, "safe for children."

@pandralisk

You going a bit overboard here. These are not extremists that censor games.

@HandofCrom (and others with similar views)

It may seem like splitting hairs, but it isn't really... The BBFC doesn't BAN anything. They have refused it classification which means that it can't be SOLD.

Not being able to sell something is not the same as not being able to say it.

"These are extremists that censor games. Shall I point out the logical neccessity for you? "

You obviously know fuck all about the BBFC and how it works, and are making links that aren't there at all.

@Pandralisk

Out of curiosity what planet are you living on?

At what point did anyone in the BBFC state that Manhunt 2 violates their Judeo-Christianic values. Not only have you grabbed the wrong end of the stick, but you seem to have fully grasped a totally different stick, in a different country.

Not to mention that Britain is just about the most secular place on the plant, "bible thumping idiots" I think not!

If this is really about the context of the killing then it begs the question, what about FPS games with multiplayer combat?

In those games the multiplayer aspect boils down to, you have people and guns in an arena, and the people use the guns to kill each other for no reason at all. Wanton violence simply for the sake of violence.

Another question is, if they block this, what comes next? Do they simply start blocking every game that portrays a world view they don't agree with? Does the next Final Fantasy gets blocked, not for violence or anything like that, but because there's "magic" in it and "magic" is of the devil?

Not being a government agency is a little odd to claim given their position due to the 1984 Video Recordings Act. Now we have a private organization with government level control over media and no "checks and balances" in place. I know the UK works differently than the USA, but doesn't the government still have limits on its power that the people can call upon? Limits that can't be used against a private organization?

The UK might not be a "terrible place for gaming at the moment", but if a stand is not taken against this now it could very well become a terrible place for gaming.

Note: I dislike Manhunt and SAW and those types of things, but I feel that anyone of age who wants to see or play them should be able to, and that no outside party should be able to govern entertainment in this way (rate it AO yes, ban it no). I don't think this is some censorship conspiracy whatnot as some people above seem to conclude, I just don't think such a private organization should have such power because private organizations in the past have shown they can't handle power properly.

The scary thing is the controversy has pushed the original manhunt back into the top 20 best sellers over here in Britain. Rockstar's profiting from the controversy quite reasonably, despite not being able to sell their product. Imagine if it ever got a release over here?

@Ix,

FPS's generally dont run into problems because the killing is usually clearly intended as fantasy. Its a big step from blasting your way through a crowd of mates on Halo, and acting out acts of horrendous, brutal violence in a lifelike setting. Theres a reason that the blood effects on most games still have a cartoony look to them, and that reason has very little, or nothing to do with technological constraints.


@Scottland89,

You also cant watch a film glorifying rape. We have certain standards in place, and while I dont particularly buy into the argument about violent media leading to people carrying out those acts, I do believe that they have a general effect on society and what we consider acceptable. Most people dont believe its ok for someone to hack a persons head in half with a rusty saw, even if that is just on a video game. I think it says something worrying about us if we think that it is not only ok, but something we should be fighting for.

@ Kentonio and all my other detractors.

Actually lets consider the facts, equivalent costs for consoles in the UK when converted to dollars; PS3 $1000, 360 $500, Wii $360.

Then lets throw in the fact, that major titles like say, Kingdom Hearts 2, are taking almost a year to make it over here when they are already in english.

Its not just one game, its a series of things that extends beyond just one game, like did you know EU Pal PS3's only actually had 2/3's the operating power of the NTSC systems?

The fact is, the UK is constantly being dumped on, in terms of prices, hardware statistics, release dates and feature sets. The fact is, its the culmination of all theses things, especially when digital distribution and e-stores are on the verge of wiping out physical game stores in the UK, I say the state of gaming here is so bad.

@Ix

For some reason the shooting of people in media in general seems not to be classified as very violent for some reason. For example shooting is common in films that are only 12 rated.

I suspect because it is so impersonal and detached from the actual killing.

It's not like FPS's never run into trouble, but when they do it is often for the opertunity to maim bodies, or otherwise desicrate them.

@Rellik San,

The issues of console pricing, release dates and the like are a very different issue, and one where not just the UK but Europe in general get screwed on a regular basis and have done for many years. You want to talk about that, and you'd probably find im right there fighting on your side. Linking that to a decision by the BBFC to not rate Manhunt 2 though, is just too much of a stretch.

Incidentally, the part you said about the game already being in English isnt necessarily true. Many games now have 2 localizations, an English and an American version. The differences are pretty subtle, but are there all the same.

Erm...where did Keith Vaz suddenly enter into this?

He's nothing to do with this issue. Now would you stop spouting blatant swear words for no reason in particular?

Oh, and it's Tony Blair that turned the UK into a Nanny state, not Keith Vaz...

^ - Keith Vaz is the one who whined about Manhunt in the first place and kicked up the controversy that got the original pulled off mainstream store's shelves. If there was no controversy surrounding the original game, and if Vaz didn't petition to have this game banned too, I very much doubt the BBFC would have acted in such a fascist manner.

Now would you stop spouting blatant ignorance for no reason in particular?

Wow - again... how do some people meet government encroachment on their rights as grown adults??

with thunderous applause

It shouldn't matter what the game is or its content. That is not the issue. The fact that a government (and hold the crap about the BBFC not being 'government' as any body that is funded by a government and has the power to enforce legislation IS government) takes ANY amount of rights away from the population should be bothersome to everyone.

As they say - it is the start of a slippery slope

Ias, you obviously display ignorance about the BBFC, read what was said earlier.

The BBFC has NOTHING to do with the government. Whatever Vaz may have said, will have ZERO effect on the BBFCs decision. Stop it with the Governmental conspiracy theories.

@ Ix

Of course graphic nature makes a difference. Having non realistic visuals makes a game much more discernible from real life, and makes the distinction between real and fake more obvious. It's why films like Lord of the Rings can show a head being lopped off from an orc can get a 12, and a human head would probably get a 15/18 - it's more obvious the creatures are fake and entirely made up, therefore non-realistic, and easier for an individual to tell fantasy from real (especially when you go to extremes like "snuff" films that might look incredibly realistic and sickening to watch despite being fake, and induce similar reactions as if it were real).

Now, I'm sure the above argument will be used as the graphics aren't photo realistic, but they don't have to be. They're aiming for a realistic depiction, often with plenty of gore and blood. There's also a lot to be said for audio qualities, with the games sound effects being particularly gruesome, along with the sadistic nature of the kills themselves, far above any FPS game.

In regards to a multiplayer aspect, it could often be justified as an extension of mechanics in the single player game, except being able to play against friends. Chances are if you're playing with mates it's already well realised it's fake.

"he BBFC has NOTHING to do with the government. Whatever Vaz may have said, will have ZERO effect on the BBFCs decision. Stop it with the Governmental conspiracy theories."


The BBFC has nothing to do with the government? That's good. So Rockstar can tell them, "fuck you we're releasing it in your country anyways."

@orangekrush ("and hold the crap about the BBFC not being ‘government’ as any body that is funded by a government and has the power to enforce legislation IS government")

The BBFC is funded by the organisations that submit their media for classification. They do not have the power to enforce legislation and they can't stop you watching a film or playing a game that isn't otherwise illegal.

Your problem is apparently with the Video Recordings Act - take *that* up with the government.

@Erik

'The BBFC has nothing to do with the government? That’s good. So Rockstar can tell them, “fuck you we’re releasing it in your country anyways.”

They could try, but without a legal age rating, then it would be unlikely that stores would stock it without fear of repercussion, and Rockstar would lose a huge sum of money and profit.

That's ultimately the goal of a business after all...to make profit.

Erik:

"The BBFC has nothing to do with the government? That’s good. So Rockstar can tell them, “fuck you we’re releasing it in your country anyways.”

Yup - I couldn't have said it better myself. An agency does not need to have the name 'Ministry of" in front of it to be considered an arm of government.

Hey - its not my country - if Britons feel the need to have the government tell them what they can and cannot watch, then so be it. Canada is not that bad... yet...

Wasn't going to get it anyway. My PS2 broke. Which is why I bought a PS3.

@Ix,

I love playing violent games too, but whereas im happy to shoot someone in counter strike and release a bit of tension, i'd find it worrying if I was sawing off someones legs in cinematic slow mo to get the same release.

@orangekrush

I'm sorry you willfully refuse to take the opportunity to educate yourself when its presented to you.

You say Canada isn't as bad? Indeed, Canada has a seperate classification board for each territory or province, all apparently confusing the hell out of everyone with their own ratings system. So much so apparently that negotiations are underway for a unified board to replace them (any of this sounding familiar?). A number of these territories already require any work on sale to have a classification, but their highest rating applies only to works that are "considerd tolerable to the community". So you tell me, because unlike you I'm willing to learn, what difference is there between Canada and the UK?

wow - such hostility!

As far as I am aware, there is no interest in either provincial (territorial) or federal governments in a 'government' enforced ratings system. The only things the government cares about around here is a health care system and how to pay for it.

That being said there is the ESRB system that is used here.

I suppose the only difference is that a game can be distributed without a rating but some stores will refuse to sell 'unrated' games.

@Kentonio

Yeah, sawing might be worrying if it gives you the same release as CS. I don't really play violent games to release tension, anger though bleeds away faster than my opponents after a good God of War session.

Also one can step back from the game and consider things like, "I might not be the best person in this world, but I sure wouldn't do that to anyone", which is something that actually helps me relax while playing these games. Might be a little silly using God of War for the example but it feels good to be able to say, "I might be angry right now but I'd never jam blades in someone's mouth then rip their head off".

Perhaps the problem isn't game content, but how the game is played? If someone's playing manhunt as some sort of preparation then they're sick and need help, but if they're playing it as just a game with the knowledge that it's twisted, and also knowing they'd never do something like that in the real world then I feel the content and graphics aren't much of an issue.

In the end I think that what people do in the real world matters most, and I think that even upstanding people can still play and enjoy this type of game so long as they're mature enough to know it's just a game, and not go out after playing it and beat up the homeless guy at the end of the street with a tire iron.

@RyanT

Sorry bout the delay in this reply, kinda missed your reply to me the first time going over new posts.

Graphic nature does make a difference, but that difference should be changing a 12 and up rating to 18 and up, not an outright ban. I also agree that there are limits that the law should impose on some things like Snuff films, but with what I've seen of Manhunt 2 and the other games I've played that are on the market; I can't agree that Manhunt 2 is on such a different level to deserve being banned.

"Chances are if you’re playing with mates it’s already well realised it’s fake."

Fair enough, but I think if someone's mature enough to be an adult then they already know it's fake when they put the disk in, even if they're all alone when they do it. Even stuff based on true stories is just based on it and shouldn't be considered true in total if it's been made into a game.

What the fuck is going on with gamepolitics? So many of you are DEFENDING the ban. What the fuck?

"They could try, but without a legal age rating, then it would be unlikely that stores would stock it without fear of repercussion, and Rockstar would lose a huge sum of money and profit."

I don't see why. I mean if the government can't say anything about it the stores should still sell it.


"Oookay…so just because you can’t get your fix of gore and death out of one solitary game you think everything’s going to hell for the videogame industry. How about Singapore, where they banned the Darkness, or Germany, who have banned Jericho, or the multitude of games banned in Australia? Trust me, it’s a lot worse elsewhere in the world."


That's like saying you don't have to clean your dirty house because your neighbor's house is dirtier.

It's too bad their is no Free Speech protection in the U.K. Otherwise the 1984 Video Recording Act could be challenged in court and scraped as unconstitutional in that country. Outright bans are a sign of the nanny state. Even here in Ontario the Ontario Film Review Board can no longer outright ban films or video games, they can merely classify them as the courts found that outright bans violates the charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I'm surprised the toned-down version didn't make the grade, and if this story's rank as one of Yahoo's top news items of the day suggests, other people are too. On a different note, just ignore Pandralisk, he spouts the same crap on every thread.

@ Ivresse

But the point is it isn't just graphical nature - it's the storyline and themes, along with context - are those killings justified in some way by story and situation, and if so, is it represented in a more well rounded manner, and in a way that doesn't encourage said violence as normal and OK, which is what the BBFC essentially does in it's ratings. The thing is, We don't know everything that's in the game, and as I've stated in some of my other retorts, it appears even jsut reading previews etc. there are moments where the rather extreme violence and other adult content aren't justified or represented properly. That's essentially the detrimental effect most rating boards talk about. Not neccesarily you'll believe the game is real and you'll go out killing, but it'll affect your views, influence you (obviously you're an adult and most of your views are well ingrained, but it doesn't make you invulnerable to influence, even if just on a minor level, and could effect younger children in how they see violence ad other themes represented in the game, one reason why boards age rate to begin with). It's important to note after that last bit I said, that isn't repression of a view or opinion or in this case a game, but making sure said view, idea, story/characters etc are well rounded, and any actions and such are put in proper context to help understand, and also minimize any glamorisation, making something bad/irrepsonsible and stupid look "cool" and other such stuff.

@ Erik

You're an idiot and obviously won't listen to sense or a proper informed view.

@ BmK

BBFC doesn't do fuck all in violating rights and freedoms of any sort, try reading up a bit.

"You’re an idiot and obviously won’t listen to sense or a proper informed view."


Maybe you should try making a proper informed point of view for once to see.


But it comes down to the fact that if Rockstar does find their testicles and release the game without the consent of the BBFC, then if the BBFC isn't a governmental branch/lapdog then the British Government shouldn't do and won't be able to do jack shit.

And if they do. Hey look governmental censorship.


"BBFC doesn’t do fuck all in violating rights and freedoms of any sort, try reading up a bit."

Except, you know, in getting a governmental ban on Manhunt 2.

I fail to see how banning something based on its tone instead of actual physical scenes is somehow a better way to do things. I suppose the next game with a tone about rebelling against government need be suppressed, as well.

The lack of a BBFC rating in no way prevents consumers from ordering the game from an overseas vendor, does it? So the money that would have gone to game shops in the UK just goes elsewhere and consumers have to wait a couple weeks for shipping.

I can't say that'd bother me, since I already order games from eBay vendors in China--as much as 50% off and I don't mind the wait.

"Seriously, who gives a damn about the BBFC’s justification? "

You do in some way as you're here arguing, unless you've stumbled into the wrong argument.

I wouldn't be calling people idiots if I hadn't already provided and fully explained my points 10 times over, and didn't feel like I was banging my head against a brick wall with lots of people who have no idea of what censorship means, don't understand the concept that the BBFC is an independent body no matter what way you try and spin it, and generally weren't fecking tired of arguing with people who are absolutely clueless about the ratings system and aren't that informed on these matters as they perhaps think they are.

"I wouldn’t be calling people idiots if I hadn’t already provided and fully explained my points 10 times over, and didn’t feel like I was banging my head against a brick wall with lots of people who have no idea of what censorship means"

I think you're the one who is struggling with the definition of censorship. Is the BBFC allowing the game to be released? If the answer is no then it is censorship.

You seem to believe that this form of censorship is kosher because A: its not "really" the government. and B: The context is bad.

Let me tell you about the context. At this point I think that Rockstar should double the violence from the original version and turn the targets of the unjustified killings into children, THEN release it in the UK without the consent of the BBFC.

"It is an indirect form of government mind and thought control against the citizens of the state as the nanny-state is restricting the dissemination of media that allow citizens to form their own viewpoints based on unrestricted and uncensored access to ideas, information, messages and opinions. This is very dangerous. The government should have no right to ban media on the basis or content solely because they fin d it offensive to their puritanical morals or beliefs. PERIOD! "

Once again you've missed the whole point and purpose of those laws in the first place, and indirectly the BBFC. The UK is pretty liberal, including the BBFC, and are all up for expression of ideas, information, messages etc. This isn't fecking China. This isn't restricting anyone forming their own viewpoint as we're allowed access to pretty much anything unless it's overly gratuitious (like my extreme example of a snuff film) or incredibly one sided (like a whole video decdicated to saying all black people are evil, along with no or very little counterpoint) or alll that stuff I mentioned before about context.

Now I really am gone, sorry for bad language at parts but I'm tired and stressed and most of this discussion has felt like banging a head against a brick wall.

"or incredibly one sided (like a whole video decdicated to saying all black people are evil, along with no or very little counterpoint) or alll that stuff I mentioned before about context."


Thats fucking censorship!

"just illegal to sell here because without a certificate it is not alllowed to go on sale."

That's censorship.

Perfect explanation from earlier:

"Here I go two feet into the argument…

I’m really sick of people saying that as an adult ONLY they have the right to decide what they can and can’t watch. There HAS TO BE a socially acceptable level of what people can, and can not do. Otherwise there would be nothing stopping you going to a shop and buying Child-Porn, or Snuff Film. In the same way as society stop you going out and murdering people, or beating the crap out of people.

Whatever some of the posters think about Manhunt the simple truth is that the vast majority of people in this DEMOCRACY do not want this sort of thing to accept. The BBFC is in place to uphold the general concencus of what is and is not acceptable.

FFS people realise that we have what we do and don’t do regulated our ENTIRE lives, grow up and move on! "

"You also cant watch a film glorifying rape. We have certain standards in place, and while I dont particularly buy into the argument about violent media leading to people carrying out those acts, I do believe that they have a general effect on society and what we consider acceptable. Most people dont believe its ok for someone to hack a persons head in half with a rusty saw, even if that is just on a video game. I think it says something worrying about us if we think that it is not only ok, but something we should be fighting for. "

"Has ANYONE got the slightest shred of proof yet that Manhunt 2 offers any kind of depth, or indeed evidence that it is anything more than the twisted gore fest with new interactive slaughter controls(tm) that many of us presumed it was from the outset?

If not, then forgive me if I dont feel any desire to join a fight in the name of censorship thats actually about you guys getting to mash a characters brains in with a bat because its controversial and makes you feel cool and edgy. "

"I’m really sick of people saying that as an adult ONLY they have the right to decide what they can and can’t watch. There HAS TO BE a socially acceptable level of what people can, and can not do."


And that is Jack Thompson's entire crusade summed up. To tell adults what they can and cannot view. That the government should strip these rights from them and do their decision making for them.

"Otherwise there would be nothing stopping you going to a shop and buying Child-Porn, or Snuff Film. In the same way as society stop you going out and murdering people, or beating the crap out of people."

Child porn and snuff films are not banned due to content. They are banned due to the fact that actual real life people in them had crimes perpetrated onto them. Who was hurt in the production of Manhunt 2?


"Whatever some of the posters think about Manhunt the simple truth is that the vast majority of people in this DEMOCRACY do not want this sort of thing to accept. The BBFC is in place to uphold the general concencus of what is and is not acceptable."


And I do not wish my rights bound by power hungry wanna-be dictators and their brainless sheep who think they have a right to make a decision for another adult's media.

“You also cant watch a film glorifying rape."

Why not?


"while I dont particularly buy into the argument about violent media leading to people carrying out those acts, I do believe that they have a general effect on society and what we consider acceptable. Most people dont believe its ok for someone to hack a persons head in half with a rusty saw, even if that is just on a video game. I think it says something worrying about us if we think that it is not only ok, but something we should be fighting for. ”

Okay, now I at least know where you are coming from. Now that I see you are a Thompson/Yee supporter I can give you the benefit of the doubt of being a censorcrat. For awhile here I thought you were a fellow gamer and not some soccer mom, my mistake.

Most people dont believe its ok for someone to hack a persons head in half with a rusty saw, even if that is just on a video game. I think it says something worrying about us if we think that it is not only ok, but something we should be fighting for. ”

In real life its not. In fiction it is fiction and therefore okay.

And you're damn straight I'm going to fight for it.


“Has ANYONE got the slightest shred of proof yet that Manhunt 2 offers any kind of depth, or indeed evidence that it is anything more than the twisted gore fest with new interactive slaughter controls(tm) that many of us presumed it was from the outset?"


I really don't give a shit if there is any sort of depth to it. That is a moot point. In fact at this point I do hope its a pointless gorefest. You seem to believe that your "depth based censorship" should be any more easy to stomach than any other form.


"If not, then forgive me if I dont feel any desire to join a fight in the name of censorship thats actually about you guys getting to mash a characters brains in with a bat because its controversial and makes you feel cool and edgy. “

And you don't have to. You're always welcome to join the other side. Hell you HAVE joined the other side. Your line of personal sensibilities have been crossed so you want to keep this game out of adults hands. Jack Thompson has been doing the same, but his line of personal sensibilities were crossed way back in the days of Doom.

OH ffs, a car could ram my point into you and you'd still ignore it and claim I'm some wacko like JT, I really couldn't give a shit anymore, just leave it at that. I can't be arsed to argue with dicks like you.

And yes, I know what your point is. You want the government or other group to decide what is proper for adults. I get it. And even though I understand your point, doesn't mean I'm not going to fight against it. I know what your point is, I just consider it immoral.

Please, just stop being a dick. Im not against freedom, you;re just being an idiot. just piss off and leave it.

@RyanT

When the government has the power to ban media because of it's content, that is the essence of censorship. It doesn't matter whether the ideas, information, messages and opinions within that media are considered negative or positive. Some people find the Holy Bible or Quran's messages to be negative. Some people find the ideas and messages in Harry Potter to be negative. Back in the 1800's in America many people found speech that advocated the abolition of slavery to be negative.
Whether the particular media has a negative or positive message is up to the individual to decide not the government. If the people of Britain find Manhunt 2 to be too offensive or have a negative message then they have every right not to buy or play the game. But for those British gamers who want to buy and play the game, they should have every right to buy and play it.

You're being an idiot because of stupid over the top hyperbolic statements like me against freedom.

Maybe this time I can finally close the page, enjoy House and forget about this.

You are allowed to own a copy of Manhunt 2 in the UK. You are allowed to play Manhunt 2 in the UK. There is no government ban, or non-government ban on Manhunt 2.

Game stores are not allowed to sell unrated software, so they cannot sell you a copy of Manhunt 2.

To use hyperbole to defend the BBFC situation, you are not allowed to sell children over the counter in baby shops, yet children are not banned in the UK.

You cannot sell unrated software in the UK. Rockstar have to get the game rated either by appealing or changing content.

@Matthew

It doesn't matter is you can still play or own the game in the U.K. By banning it from being sold or rented out it's still a form of censorship. If you could own and read the Holy Bible or Holy Quran but couldn't buy a copy of one from the store, would that still be o.k. with you. What about Harry Potter books? What about Charles Darwin's book The Origin of the Species? If a form of media can be owned but can't be sold it's still a form of censorship as it severely limits a citizens right to get ahold of such media if they wish to have it. All in all it's still censorship and still wrong.

"The Video Recordings Act states (from the government) that stuff must be certified before it can be sold. That is where the government falls into this. The BBFC is a non-governmental entity which is granted the rights from the government to rate things."

Somehow thats even worse. The government granting these powers to non-elected officials. At what point is this not supposed to sound like the common person's rights being raped?

"If a form of media can be owned but can’t be sold it’s still a form of censorship as it severely limits a citizens right to get ahold of such media."

Censorship is not restriction of sale. Rockstar are being denied the ability to distribute Manhunt 2 for sale in the UK. Who is actually being censored in this instance?

Your "right to buy Manhunt 2 in the UK" is not being restricted because it never existed in the first place. You don't have the right to buy something which cannot be sold. Nobody is restricting my rights to buy a slave, drugs, the Moon, ennui, human organs, etc. because sale of those things is already illegal or impossible. If anyone had the right to sell them and I was not allowed to buy them, that would be a restriction of my liberties.

@Erik:

"The government granting these powers to non-elected officials. At what point is this not supposed to sound like the common person’s rights being raped?"

The BBFC isn't a bunch of non-elected officials as such. It's a company. You can go and work there as an examiner if you can convince them to hire you. It's made up of normal people from all walks of life.

Remember that the UK is another country and has some alien quirks in that respect. The royal family is non-elected. Parliament has non-elected officials. These people control the country to varying degrees and have a direct impact on the common person and their rights. The BBFC does nothing to the common person's rights.

Thinking about it, that explains a lot. The BBFC functions as a republic.

Reading the comments to GP from Brits, you can get the impression that a large number of people believe Manhunt 2 pushes the envelope too far. The set of common people in the UK who think Manhunt 2 should be released is a minority. The examiners generally form a representative sample of the population as a whole. It's a hotly contested topic within the industry so it's probably hotly contested within the BBFC itself. I wouldn't be surprised if the BBFC's decision was a close call. If Rockstar keeps appealing, the game could get through.

Happened with Carmageddon.

@StinkingKevin,

"In the U.S., we live in what most consider a republic, where we are guaranteed basic rights to think and act as individuals. It is not a true “democracy,” in which simple mob rule determines completely what is “right” and “wrong.” I believe this is the case in the U.K. as well."

Right, setting aside for a moment the obvious jibes about McCarthyism, civil rights and the numerous other examples where the USA completely failed to allow rights that the First Amendment stated, how exactly does the US offer any more freedom in real terms to the UK? Im not directing this part at you, but im getting more than a little sick of reading crap on here from US posters who see this about the BBFC and then start posting shit like 'There’s a reason we split off to become the only free country in the world'.

The UK allows freedom to say pretty much any damn thing you like, but we also have a set of considerably loose standards that we expect people not to cross. Thats why we dont rate games like Manhunt 2 without proper consideration, and why we dont allow fucktards like the Westboro Baptists to disrupt funerals by waving signs saying 'Your son died because god hates fags'. If you consider that censorship then cool. If you think your republic is such a shiny beacon of goodness then stay there and enjoy your 'freedom'. In the meantime, we'll look after our country and continue to expect those living here to not only enjoy their rights, but also carry the duty to not abuse those rights. Its called consideration for others, and is what makes the difference between a 'free' society and a society with freedoms.

Again Kevin, please dont take the above as directed at you please, you made your points reasonably and well. Im just getting fucked off with a load of the people here acting like the UK is some kind of backward country. We invented parliamentary democracy ffs.

@Matthew

i think it's just cultural thing... it seems like the people that post who are from the US are like:

"the BBFC (kinda associated w/ the govt) can ban the game? That's bullsh*t!!!"

while the UK posters want to passionately defend this classification system thing and cherish it because of their national pride or something (i'm in the US).

@BmK:

"Dictatorship of the majority"

So a democratic republic, then? What sort of dictatorship allows people to vote to control governmental decisions and allows game developers (the actual people affected by the BBFC decision) to appeal?

"It doesn’t allow any room for dissenting or unpopular ideas or information"

Like Rockstar's appeal? Or the examine-refusal-appeal-rating-release cycle that many other violent games and movies have had in the past? However, the last half of your post is just mad hyperbole. Isn't there some sort of Godwin's Lemma for comparing the inability to sell Manhunt 2, to the actions of communist China?

@BmK again:

Wow, you're Canadian and you still like Britain? Seriously. I think half of the world is pretty justified in not liking Britain. God knows we made a bit of a mess of it when we owned it.

The argument is over something trivial, remember. It's majority morals rules effectively. The idea is that if the BBFC considers something seriously morally repugnant, then the country as a whole probably agrees and so it's better off without it. It is rather nanny-state and arguments come from all around, but that's the way it is for now. If enough people want it to change, it will change; That's why it's laughable to compare this situation to a dictatorship.

@Matthew
Say what....!? Are you referring to Plato's fantasy land of philosopher kings, or are you using some arcane British definition of "republic"? When the views of the majority override the rights of the minority, that is "mob rule" -- "anarchy" even, perhaps, but certainly not a "republic" in any modern sense I know.

A functioning republic requires some basic set of enduring common rules that determine the powers of elected representatives and protect the represented -- even those in the minority. In our republics, for example, we are guaranteed the freedom to tell others about our religious beliefs, no matter how unpopular our particular religions happen to be. Is it really true that if enough people agreed, the BBFC could refuse classification to a work of art based on its religious message alone, or are you just making things up?

But anyway...how is a private company that makes its own private decisions about which private employees to hire and which private policies to follow in any way like a republic? How is that even "public" at all?!

@Kentonio
Perhaps you invented it, but we perfected it? (No, no, just kidding...mostly).

You don't need to go all the way back to the Red Scare to make fun of our civil libertarian shortcomings -- just look at the Patriot Act, and current efforts to make the NSA's authority for unwarranted wiretaps permanent. Defending the Bill of Rights is a fight that never ends, but maybe that's part of the beauty of it all.

In any case, never did I claim that America is an "shining beacon of goodness," nor did I ever intend for this to degrade into some sort of "my representative government is better than yours" contest. I mostly just wanted to clarify my firm belief that failing to defend the right to express an idea because the idea is unpopular is paramount to failing to defend freedom of expression itself.

For the record, I do defend the right of those "fucktards" to wave their disgusting signs, as wholly objectionable as their message is to me, so long as they do not violate anyone else's private property rights. Now, their message is certainly far from any sort "shining goodness," but their right to express themselves is the lesser of two evils when I consider the alternative of having my government decide what I can or cannot put on my own sign.

@Matthew
"The idea is that if the BBFC considers something seriously morally repugnant, then the country as a whole probably agrees and so it’s better off without it."

1) Prove that the BBFC represents the majority of the U.K.
2) The BBFc is not elected by the people, yet still decides what is and is not appropriate for the public in a country that is supposed to be a democracy. Do you not see anything wrong with that?
3)Even if the majority do think it is morally unacceptable, that is still no reason to take it away from the minority who do think it is O.K. and who can handle it (don't even try bringing up child pornography here because that is a different situation).

Would these guys ban the dead zone for it's ending (I'm not going to spoil it for people who haven't read it)?

Would they ban into the woods for killing a giant at the end?

How about little red riding hood, the grimm version where she is eaten by the wolf and no woodsman arrives to help her?

Really what is so wrong about (a fictional character) killing people just for the hell of it? Why can't it be violence for the sake of violence? Do they really believe that adults can't handle violence on the screen unless there is some thing that tells them that it is wrong? Do they really think the morals of adults can be so easily swayed by an obvious work of fiction (ignoring religious texts)?

I get to imitate a stuntman in a video game. Stuntmen are real people who get paid (not sure how much) to put their life on the line doing dangerous stunts all to make a great movie. The game I play glamourizes (and somewhat romanticizes) stuntman yet I have no desire to become one. Now there are some games where i get to imitate serial killers, who are constantly on the lam, do illegal activities and are despised throughout. Knowing this why would I aspire to be a serial killer from a video game and not a stuntman. It just makes no sense.

I still say the world would be so much better if we still had the British Empire...

*grabs a copy of Read or Die*

"The BBFC isn’t a bunch of non-elected officials as such. It’s a company. You can go and work there as an examiner if you can convince them to hire you. It’s made up of normal people from all walks of life."

True or False: They make decisions on what media the British people are and aren't allowed to purchase.

True of False: The people of this company are hired.

I think my point still stands. The fact that a company would have so much power is vile.

"Remember that the UK is another country and has some alien quirks in that respect. The royal family is non-elected. Parliament has non-elected officials. These people control the country to varying degrees and have a direct impact on the common person and their rights. The BBFC does nothing to the common person’s rights."

And if the common person wants to buy a copy of Manhunt 2 at their local Gamestop that right hasn't been infringed?

Pandralisk is right.

@ haters

1. This has EVERYTHING to do with the BBFC's implicit supposition of morals derived from Judeo-Christian values. Why?

2. Judeo-Christian values serve as the core foundation of what the BBFC defines as moral. Otherwise, we would not find simple DEPICTIONS of IMAGINENARY violence and sex to be morally obscene. In other terms, one could not abstract a corlation between the cause of an event [the BBFC thinks this matieral will encourage obscene acts] and the act itself [an obscene act committed]. Furthermore, arguments against consentual sexual morality are almost always fundamentally tied to religious dogma; as are arguments that seek to deflame the DEPICTION of violence. It thus becomes NECCESSARY to critique the ficticious, bible-thumping values, that JUSTIFY game censorship.

3. To hell with the "majority consensus" argument. We could use that flawed logic to support anything from slavery to nazi Germany. For people to remain free-thinking begins, we must decide what is moral FOR OURSELVES. The goverment must not TELL us what is moral or immoral. You rape your own sense of autonomy if you argue anything otherwise.

@VenomandCarnage

I'm totally serious. I would put money down on the fact that every member of the BBFC is a card carrying Jesus worshipper. We need more people like Pandralisk in the world. It would be a much better place.

@Erik

That's a little harsh and unneccesary, don't you think?

"Oh, I forgot… calling someone a racist is the modern equivalent of calling someone a witch 200 years ago. When you can’t intelligently debate someone’s opinion, just yell, “he’s a witch!” to completely invalidate their arguement."


Read his posts. Sometimes a bigot is a bigot.

And sometimes a bigot is just a bigot.


Seriously, you don't debate with a bigot. You point and laugh at them as long as it amuses you, then ignore them when they no longer give you mirth.

Currently, I'm sticking Pandralisk and Cyrus on the same level as Osama Bin Laden and every mad Muslim fanatic out there...deranged psychopaths that don't know what the fuck they're saying and quite frankly deserve a big bomb shoved right up their arse, tied to a car and parked near President Mugabe's house...

Hang on, I think I'm on to something...if you don't like Christianity and Judaism....you're a Muslim extremist aren't you! Tell me I'm right, you're a Muslim extremist!

@ Coravin

While I'm flattered, I do have to ask, did you read the recent argument a couple scrolls up?

Wow, a lot happenned overnight =) Interesting reading.

Y'know, I've been visiting GP for a long time, and I never really grasped until now what the real reason was for the lack of any real resolution or even meaningful progress with regards to the unstoppable force of JT and his brigade trying to restrict and ban games, and the immovable object of the US 1st Amandment. Thanks to the views shared above I think I do finally get it now.

JT sees the 1st Amendment as an excuse for the immoral to inflict porn and murder simulators on the innocent. You guys see JT as a threat to your rights and freedoms. The problem? Both sides are right.

What I don't get is your refusal to see any ammount of usefulness in a classification system such as the BBFC's, and I think that's because you're blinded by the very real problem that the UK government has legislated that an unclassified work is illegal to sell. *That* is what is wrong. What *should* be illegal is the selling of rated works to underage consumers.

With this system in place, it then comes down to individual responsibility. Which, incidentally, is something not one person has made reference to during all this back-and-forth about rights.

@Kentonio:

Nailed it.

This story about the BBFC resulted, as it often does, in a slightly shouty match about ethics, freedoms, rights, and whatnot. What it basically boils down to is a group of Americans saying that the BBFC system is un-American and would never be allowed to happen in their country. They are correct. An obligatory rating system that can deny sale of a particular media while not being subject to the checks and balances of government would not gel well in the US. It does work in the UK with only a small (but admittedly growing) disagreement. Arguing about how the BBFC is un-American is as effective, and as morally ambiguous, as a Brit soapboxing about how the US should ban handguns. "That's not how we do things here."

"but if you walk through the streets with a banner saying ‘Black people are a lesser race’, or ‘Exterminate the muslims’, you are going to be stopped."


Well that clears a lot of things up. So the UK has less freedom of expression. As long as you are happy with that, though I can't see how you would be. Me? I'm happy to live in a country where even troglodytes like Thompson and Pandralisk can say their piece.

@Pandralisk

Sure, if you had in all of your posts discussed only the Christian religion, maybe people wouldn't be so fed up with you. But you didn't. You literally called everyone who disagreed with you blind morons. Like JT, you started with the name-calling and people stopped listening to you.

That was several threads ago and you're still accompanying most of your points with rehashing of the same hate-filled invective, and still claiming absolutes such as "Christianity is the bane of human existence and responsible for all injustice/immorality/etc.". The former makes it nearly impossible to assume otherwise than that you are very angry or very hateful, and the latter, your claims of all and none, are entirely false--because all it takes is one counterexample, and since they exist, your unrelated points that are actually on topic and possible contributing to the dialogue immediately lose credibility to everyone else.

@Cyrus

Apparently you just don't get it. The point in comparing Pandralisk to the Klan had nothing to do with religion, it had to do with hating the "other". The Klan uses their religious beliefs--a twisted mockery of the Bible's passages--to justify their hate-mongering and superiority complex. Pandralisk uses his equally zealously held beliefs against Christianity in the same manner, to beat down (in his case, verbally) those who don't share his beliefs and at the same time puff himself up, like any schoolyard bully.

Pandralisk is every bit as "religious" as the most devout Klan members (who are not necessarily religious at all in this day and age), justifying hateful speech with the belief that he is right, all others ar wrong. And he subjects others to insults of their beliefs--not merely religious--and of their mental capacities. And he repetitively vomits up the same lines and condemnation for all those who hold some religious beliefs or secular ones different from his own prejudiced perceptions of the religious, particularly Christians.

He attacks all the other posters with a fervor matching devout participants in a religious experience who are determined to convert others or at least make them feel guilty for being too foolish to adopt their beliefs. He has subjected them to post after post of abuse--sometimes of their religion, sometimes of their judgment, and sometimes of their intelligence or knowledge, and who and what they are--but usually all of the above even for the atheists.

You're welcome to believe him right and all others inferior, if you so desire, but you're wrong about Pandralisk not being a bigot. The definition from dictionary.com could have been written for the purpose of certifying as much, describing exactly the behavior that has everybody up in arms. Pandralisk is wrong or forgetful to claim that calling people idiots for believing in Christ is really just an attack against their religion, not them.

Which is a lot like claiming that the house I painted to be the colors and such that I wanted is horrifically ugly, but even though I chose all the characteristics and painted everything, it's not a negative comment on my taste or abilities.

Here, just so you can see that, yes, sometimes a bigot IS just a bigot, regardless of any worthwhile points he may have:

Bigotry--"stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

@ [alien symbiote and its violent offspring]

Yes, I read everythin before my post, but I don't know which derailment you're talking about (although I suspect I address it above).

Most of the people posting contributed something, even if only annoyance (theirs or something they inflicted on the rest) that pushed others to clarify, expound upon, or otherwise more completely share their perspectives.

Plenty of the above posts also fit the bigotry description fairly well, if loosely because they more express diffeing cultural values in a head-on collision. But most of those sparked further discussion due to their relevance, whereas Pandralisk's confrontational, insensitive, and belligerent claims continue to hide the kernels of value in many of his posts.

It's ironic, and too reminiscent of JT as well as the very fundamentalist-extremist Christians pandralisk so lambastes, that he is the one repeating himself as if to all the better indoctrinate us, lol. Here he is, shoving a specific set of beliefs down peoples' throats every bit as fanatically as the so-called Christians he mocks for forcing their views on others and refusing to look outside of their box of "how things are".

If Pandralisk can predominantly add relevant points WITHOUT repeatedly positing the exact same inflammatory and derogatory to anyone who believes otherwise, then people MIGHT be willing to take him seriously as a contributer to these discussions rather than as the equivalent of the LDS members who repeatedly try to gain entrance into homse so they can attempt to convert.

As things stand, though, no matter how valid or astute or thoughtful some of his positions or comments may be, none of that matters. This site gets treated like his soapbox, a pulpit from which he preaches vitriolic comments and dogmatic absolutes that make him come across as bitter, angry, and mean-spirited.

Exaggerating through "all or none" claims such as "ALL Christians are so stupid for believing this" makes the reader question his credibility in other parts of the posts, however worthwhile--and more so when the claim itself is dubious. In a final and amusing irony, Pandralisk's beliefs are spouted with such frequency and vehemence that the reader can end up coming away with the sense that Pandralisk is on some sort of Holy Crusade against all the infidels who believe things like the Bible instead of adhering to Pandralisk's personally accepted beliefs.

@Cyrus982

No, actually you are a Nazi because you are joining in with Pandralisk to attack people based on their beliefs. Like oh, putting Jewish people into ovens.

"Please point out where I attacked anyone’s beliefs, and where I said anything about jewish people being put into ovens."


Maybe you should read Pandralisk's posts, all of them. Before you go agreeing with him. But yes, Pandralisk is anti-semite, anti-gentile and anti-muslim and God knows what else. So if you are going to agree with him then I'm just going to lump you in with his hatemongering.

@ cyrus

so pretty much what your saying is that in order to prevent christians from taking away freedom, we must force people to stop following christianity. Yeah, noticing the hypocracy here?

Please show where I said that.

But there is nothing in the article to suggest a christianity influence in the first place, obviously they have seperate reasons for banning it other than religion. If it really was religion based, and if it was anywhere near as bad as you suggest, wouldn't you think that there would be many more bans on violent video games, most bans we hear about are few and far between. And again, I admit I was a bit harsh, and for that I do apologize.

I apologize also for getting upset. I know you're not the one that's been calling me names, and/or calling for my murder like Elonex. That stuff is starting to get to me...

You're right that I don't know for a fact that the BBFC ratings members are all christians, but it's a pretty safe assumption. I would like to do a little research and find out if they are, but like rating boards in all countries the members doing the actual rating are kept secret from the public. They're suppossed to be an independent board of different minded people, but this is never the case.

There's a movie called "This Film is not yet rated" about the MPAA here in America. If you haven't seen it, then you should. I'm sure you'd see a lot of paralells between the MPAA, the ESRB, the BBFC, and other ratings boards across the world.

My position is that religion is the basis for the crack down on video games. History has shown it to be the reason behind every other crack down against media, such as movies, comic books, and rock music. If you don't think that religious values are behind the current fight against video games, I'd be interested in knowing what you believe the real reason to be.

"I’d be interested in knowing what you believe the real reason to be."

Ignorance perpetuated by power hungry politicians.

"Ignorance perpetuated by power hungry politicians."

Agreed. But I'm also adding that there's still yet another cause behind that ignorance and greed, and that the source is their personal religious beliefs.

"What about the atheist leftists who crack down on violent video games because they believe that its a training tool for the conservative right-wing’s war machine?"

That is a new one on me. First time I've ever heard that. Have they actually formed a group like all the religious groups against gaming, or is it just a couple of people you've heard say that?

okay cyrus, this is a new one for me, what groups are you referring to when you say "all the religious groups against gaming"? This is just out of curiousity, and correct me if I'm wrong, but to me, it seems to be too much of a generalization, especially after it has been revealed that churches have used Halo 3 as a means to lure kids into their youth groups.

Whoa, you leave for a few hours and the discussion totally changes. Why is religion even being thrown around here? As far as I can see, it's because people *assume* that the BBFC is made up of Christians and therefore push Christian morals on the country's media. Whenceforth came this?

According to Wikipedia (lol, I know, but it's a decent first start) "The Tearfund Surve y in 2007 revealed 53% identifying themselves as Christian and only 7% of people in the UK are actually practicing Christians." There will obviously be a large Christian sensibility to the population, with laws and ethics of the country being founded during more religious times, but the UK is far more secular than the US could begin to imagine.

If the BBFC refused Manhunt 2, I seriously doubt it was for "Christian reasons" or because Jesus wouldn't like it. (He probably would appreciate the Wiimote control though.) It's because the standard morals of the country say things like "violent murder is wrong" and even godless atheists tend to agree with that one.

Put it this way, there's probably about as many fully practising christians (i.e. Attending church every Sunday) throughout the entire UK as 5 Lakewood Churches in Houston filled up, which is probably about 80,000. Christianity just isn't as big a religion here in the UK as it used to be, and it certainly isn't as important as it is in the US.

Considering that the population of the UK is currently just over 60 million, it's not really likely that the BBFC can base personal religion in its decisions...

"Maybe the total freedom you defend so strongly wouldnt seem quite as wonderful if you were a black man watching a klan rally go past"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/barnett/60144247/ Notice the fellow third from the left.

A picture is worth a thousand words. And I have seen many like it with black officers putting their lives on the line to protect Klan rallies from those who would do them harm.

Freedom, try it sometime.

Also the people in Guantanamo aren't American citizens, hence they aren't subject to the same freedoms.

@Kentonio
I think after talking with Americans for many years, that it boils down to this belief that if you give up any ground on issues like free speech, that somehow someones going to take them all away. The fact is that this simply hasnt been allowed to happen in western europe, and similarly wouldnt happen in the states either. Not everything has to be black and white, we do pretty well living in the grey area too."

Unlike most European countries, we don't have thousands of years of history and precedent to fall back on. The Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of our government and we have fought to protect it for as long as there has been a U.S.A. I think I understand your sentiment, and I agree that realty occurs in "the gray area," but I feel you are gravely underestimating the importance of the First Amendment to my country, in terms of its black-and-white principles as well as in practice.

I imagine that even in the strictest dictatorships, people have the "right" to freely express government-condoned ideas. I'm sure North Koreans are free to express their respect and affection for Kim Jong Il in just about any way they choose. So no, I'm not worried about the government taking away "all" my free speech rights; I am worried about it taking away any

@Stinking Kevin,

"From my perspective, I wonder why some of you European folks seem so afraid of someone making an offensive comment? Do you fear that racism will suddenly start to catch on if people started expressing it more publicly? As if we’ll all just forget that racism exists as long as no one ever waves an offensive sign or tells an off-offensive joke?"

America had their own apartheid far longer than most of our countries. You still have far more serious issues with racism than we do. Maybe if your system was actually producing better results, then you would be in a position to give the rest of us advice?


@Erik,

""Also the people in Guantanamo aren’t American citizens, hence they aren’t subject to the same freedoms. ""

Im presuming you dont see the sick irony in that statement and indeed how deeply offensive it sounds to the rest of the world.

@Erik,

For a country that holds itself up as the beacon of democracy and human rights, to hold citizens of other nations against their wills, without trial and without any of the protections that the USA declare to be necessary, is not only disgusting hypocrasy, but also sends the message to the rest of the world that Americans think the rest of us are somehow less than human.

The fact you seem to think that its ok for people to be held without trial, representation and be interrogated using techniques held to violate human rights, purely because they arent American, frankly sickens me. I wont be replying to any more of your posts. You are either a child who is in desperate need of a few lessons in humanity, or an adult who should already know better.