"A Whitehall leak… week suggested that Brown was ready to introduce an aggressive ‘crackdown’ on violent video games in the wake of the Byron Review, which will recommend the introduction of BBFC ratings for all software titles when it is published next month."

All software eh?

Microsoft Windows Vista... Rated M for 'Might Work' ;)

Well time to wait and see if these comments from the rumor mill surface as the demon they're being portraited as.

I suppose the thing I will say about the UK system is that it does not discriminate any particular form of media and are actually pretty forgiving when compared to the ESRB with some forms of content, they realise that it's not difficult for children to figure out that women have breasts, for example, whereas I think it's only a matter of time before the US starts promoting anti-breastfeeding campaigns because it means exposing children to sexually related images which could turn them into sex-offenders, after all, nearly 70% of all sex offenders were breast-fed, so it must be true... (That would be funny, were it not an exact replica of how a censors mind works).

Should it be a legal requirement? Well, I think as long as it is applied across the board, it is not discriminating, it should, in theory, mean that the same bar is set across the board, and, if the Byron review does recommend balancing out all the media systems, would actually mean we could do away with stupid comments like 'possibility of harm' that the BBFC used regarding Manhunt 2, because they wouldn't be able to make the claim that some versions would inevitably fall into kids hands nearly so easily.

What is really needed in the UK is to get out of the grey, voluntary or not, the system needs to work, and at the moment, it isn't properly, for a great deal of reasons, street trading, Internet downloads and lack of monitoring are among the many culprits.

Some of those fall firmly on the parents shoulders, a parent still has to take responsibility for their child, raising awareness of that is probably enough of a job, so it won't be a short haul, but to be honest, the government want to fiddle around with the BBFC as little as possible, and equally, the BBFC tend to resist government interference quite emphatically, regardless of rumour.

I suppose in summary, whether the system is a law-based or an industry-fine based one, it has to work and be effective whilst also being unbiased, otherwise it is pointless, and it's that which needs to be focussed on in the UK.

The answer is irrelevant because the two items are completely different Porn is not Grand Theft Auto, Grand Theft Auto is not porn.

"I might express the fact that I don’t like it, but I would always at least try and mention that hey… that’s not my way of doing things, there are other ways, but its not my place to say that another culture is right or wrong."

That makes me sad.

As long as he uses it to just push the point that they are doing something and leaves it at that, he can push it as hard as he likes.

I'd vote for someone else, but politics is like the end of Ghostbusters. You can pick who's doing it, but you're gonna get shafted exactly the same.

@Klokwurk

The thing is, I'd vote for someone else too, apart from the fact he's already made a whole pile of changes and STILL hasn't been voted in through any means whatsoever, he refuses to hold an election and keeps abusing his power, I'm actually getting a lot more concerned about that than his actions towards video games, he seems to be avoiding even considering holding an election, he knows he wasn't voted in, Blair was, and he knows that the chances are high that he will go down in flames when he does.

It wouldn't surprise me if he tried, though, Brown has very much got into the habit of dancing to the Tabloids' tune since he got into power, worse even than Blair.

Who will protect the adults who want to play these games?
Please, somebody think of the ADULTS!

That's what's annoying me, these games are written for adult, by adults, and sold to adults. It's up to the parent to descide what their kids play. How many people under 17 will play the new GTA4? Probably more then a handful. How many of them that play it while being under 17 will be playing it at home? Do their parents know they are playing it? If no, why not?
Instead of fighting the "industry" to protect the kids, why don't you fight the bad parents to protect the kids?

Oh, because they are your constituents. You can almost here the soccer mom now:
"Look, I voted for you to protect my children, not to tell me how to raise my kids!"

Should point out, 'from what I can garner' is comprised largely of hearsay and gossip from a few involved parties, and is not assured to be 100% accurate, but I trust the people enough to think that this will be the general shape of it.

Thing is, we already have legislation regarding age-related sales, but the Trading Standards Offices are over-worked, understaffed and underfunded, as well as being massively wrapped up in enforcing things like new anti-obesity advertising laws etc. To put it bluntly, they don't have the time, money or staff to enforce the BBFC ratings strictly enough to discourage shop owners from thinking it's worth the risk. For every shopkeeper they catch with a Secret Shopper, another 5 are not caught.

This would mean the government needs to provide better funding and support to the TSO instead of simply throwing new laws at them and expecting them to cope. Which would require not only money, but an acceptance that the system needs fixing, some areas of the Industry are worried that Brown will, instead of making a commitment, merely make a scapegoat.

The ironic part is that, if the age-enforcement system were more effectively enforced, games like Manhunt 2 would probably have got an 18, even the BBFC admitted that the enforcement problems were part of the reason they couldn't be certain it wouldn't get into the hands of underage players. But the question remains, does the Government have the rocks to accept that?

Of course, at this moment in time, it's merely a concern, not a fact, there's been no real indication either way, so I'm not going to get too worked up about it until after the report is out and we know the actual findings and recommendations and see the reaction to it.

ANd I always thought the UK were sensible countries to video games.

if he does try this, i swear there will be a PM (no pun intended) inbound.
quite a strongly worded one, in fact.

@GoodRobotUS
Who told you that a system of content-based legal restrictions is what America wants to change to? It's true that government-enforced censorship is an idea that some pandering politicians spout off about to socially conservative voters each election year, but I'm pretty sure any "system America wants" would involve the Bill of Rights, which refutes the notion that the government has any place restricting free expression among the people.

We've had dozens of game censorship bills proposed across the country over the last few years, and every last single one of them was overturned before it could take effect -- if government-enforced censorship was a system we actually wanted, I think we'd have it by now.

@Canary Wundaboy:
Maybe stricter is better if you'd prefer to rely on a Nanny State to keep you from seeing the wrong image or thinking the wrong thought. From my perspective, government-enforced censorship is never "better." So "fact is," your system may be "better" for people who are used to the idea of having the government determine which entertainment media they are and are not allowed to consume, but you're dead wrong if you think such a system would ever work in the States.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown keep you away frm games man.

"OH MY GOD, THEY'RE TAKING AWAY OUR GAMES! NOOOOO."

Well he wont be getting in in the next election then will he :D

Becuase he was not voted in the first time dear Brain and teh Tories are well above him in any poll, grow up ffs

Brian,

Would it have hurt to expand on your answer a bit?

Anyway, it turns out you're right. The BBFC does not rate all software titles, just the ones that "depict, to any significant extent, gross violence against humans or animals, human sexual activity, human urinary or excretory functions or genital organs, or techniques likely to be useful in the commission of offences."


Andrew Eisen

@Brian

I understand your point that most of Britain will simply not care about a ban on violent video games, in much the same way that most of Germany did not.

However, Brown was NOT elected as Prime Minister in any other terms than Blair, who was elected, gave him the job. Labour was elected, with Tony Blair as the leader. Then Blair quit, Brown got the job, and decided not to call an election as he was worried that the Tories would win.

The accusations of cowardice and lack of real commitment to the job that followed this have ensured that they probably will do in future (unfortunately.. I'm a Lib Dem voter myself).

@Stinking Kevin

Why are you Americans so adverse to this? Look, if a game is rated for a certain age group only, why is it wrong that retailers be banned for selling that game to people under the age limit? This is not the problem that faces us today. If parents don't their 16 year old playing GTA, then they can exercise their parental judgement, and buy the game. The problem that faces us as gamers today is not that games are rated at all, it's that the media seizes on the fact that it is too easy for kids to get games, either through their parents or through dodgy retailers.

The UK laws are fair, 12 year olds SHOULDNT be allowed to purchase GTA and there SHOULD be penalties for retailers that don't enforce it. Ultimately, our ratings arent bound by US religious conservatism anyway, hence why Mass Effect is a 12 over here and a 17+ over your side of the pond. The difference is that our ratings are properly enforced, yours arent.

@ Adrian Lopez

It is my opinion, apologies for not making that clear.
And yeah, I believe that kids shouldn't be able to purchase games that are deemed by impartial classification boards to be unsuitable for their age group.

As a lifelong gamer, 19 year old and somebody who was only able to play 18 rated games when his parents deemed me ready, that is my opinion. Slate it at will. ;)

@Canary Wundaboy:

Why are you Americans so adverse to this? Look, if a game is rated for a certain age group only, why is it wrong that retailers be banned for selling that game to people under the age limit? This is not the problem that faces us today. If parents don’t their 16 year old playing GTA, then they can exercise their parental judgement, and buy the game. The problem that faces us as gamers today is not that games are rated at all, it’s that the media seizes on the fact that it is too easy for kids to get games, either through their parents or through dodgy retailers.

The UK laws are fair, 12 year olds SHOULDNT be allowed to purchase GTA and there SHOULD be penalties for retailers that don’t enforce it. Ultimately, our ratings arent bound by US religious conservatism anyway, hence why Mass Effect is a 12 over here and a 17+ over your side of the pond. The difference is that our ratings are properly enforced, yours arent.

Having been a retail clerk, I can see the other side of the coin. I don't want some minimum-wage clerk being slapped with a $5000 fine because he sold a violent video game to a teenager - especially if selling similar content in a movie wouldn't get similar treatment. And they're not.

If we were talking about porn, that's a different matter (and probably shouldn't be, but that's an entirely different discussion), but a 13-year-old kid can walk into Wal-Mart and buy a copy of, say, the Terminator Trilogy without being carded. These are R-rated movies. Games with a similar level of violence would be ranked as M-rated games. Should the punishment for selling the game be greater than the punishment for selling the movie?

It is my opinion, apologies for not making that clear.
And yeah, I believe that kids shouldn’t be able to purchase games that are deemed by impartial classification boards to be unsuitable for their age group.

As a lifelong gamer, 19 year old and somebody who was only able to play 18 rated games when his parents deemed me ready, that is my opinion. Slate it at will.

Who gets to make those decisions? And why should a government agency make decisions that affects all people by an arbitrary age standard without consideration for a child's maturity level? What makes a 12-year-old different from a 13-year-old? Or a 17-year-old different from an 18 year old?

Why should this not be the parent's decision? That was apparently sufficient for your household...

[...] “They can bluster all they want, so long as all they achieve is headlines rather than legislation.” offers one commentator at GamePolitics. [...]

Personally, I agree with Canary, as a life long British gamer..

There is no reason why the BBFC rating should not be enforced in law, we are not talking about banning games, we are talking about saying "hey, you know what, follow them ratings when you sell games".

Its not even saying "parent's can't buy games for their kids".. its just telling the retailers to make sure they don't sell to kids. I've worked in retail, in the games industry, I know that sometimes kids try and buy things they shouldn't.. that's why you card EVERYONE. Really, we need to introduce some kind of ID scheme that everyone can get for free, because not everyone has a driver's license.

I always got irritated when, as someone in my late teens, I did not get carded for violent games. I should have. I should have been asked my age for anything I was gonna buy that has an age limit on it.

Now, I don't agree with them banning violent games, or restricting the content any more than they do movies.. I dislike Saw and Hostel as much as I dislike Manhunt, but if they allow the first two they should allow the third... but what's wrong with expecting companies to enforce the ratings? I say, that if a parent wants their kid to be allowed to play Manhunt or watch Saw, they should be able to buy it for them. The game isn't banned, and really all its doing in a way is protecting the company who is selling the game.. it allows them to sell it, but nobody to say they are selling it to minors, unless they break the rules.

Nekojin raised the point that selling games shouldn't incur a greater punishment than selling movies... and I agree.. but then I personally believe that, in the UK, the "legal age" for everything from violent movies, to porn, to driving, to drinking, etc, should be universally 16. Since when we are Sixteen we are legally allowed to do what is arguably the most important thing (have children) we should be expected, every last one of us, to be legally and socially responsible enough to do the rest of it too.

@Canary Wundaboy

To explain, in part, why we are so adverse to this, allow me to defer to the opinion of Judge Richard Posner in American Amusement Machine Ass'n v. Kendrick, 244 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2001) (emphasis mine):

People are unlikely to become well-functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble.

No doubt the City would concede this point if the question were whether to forbid children to read without the presence of an adult the Odyssey, with its graphic descriptions of Odysseus's grinding out the eye of Polyphemus with a heated, sharpened stake, killing the suitors, and hanging the treacherous maidservants; or The Divine Comedy with its graphic descriptions of the tortures of the damned; or War and Peace with its graphic descriptions of execution by firing squad, death in childbirth, and death from war wounds. Or if the question were whether to ban the stories of Edgar Allen Poe, or the famous horror movies made from the classic novels of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (Frankenstein) and Bram Stoker (Dracula). Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.

If parents wish to tilt at this windmill, that is their right. But we generally do not like the government telling us which thoughts are good and bad, regardless of age..

kids saftey
RRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGHHHHHHTTTTTTTT
you do that

@ Andrew Eisen

*Takes deep breath - Can't quite believe I'm saying this*

There is evidence to suggest that violent media in general can desensitize children to violence. We see death, violence, killing, all around us on a day to day basis. It is possible that continual exposure to violence in the media may cause kids to psychologically detach themselves from the real effects of violence in the world, as well as downplaying the importance of human life and respect for your fellow man. While you may not agree with this theory, the possibility exists. Personally, I feel that too much violence at a young age is not something we should be seeking to encourage....

Now, let me say that I fully appreciate and support your actions as a parent. But let's think for a moment that some parents are not gamers, and have no idea what their kids are playing. Kids these days have a lot more access to money, if there arent any controls in place, and parents are unaware of their childs gaming habits, then there would be no safeguard to stop kids going out and purchasing content that has been deemed unsuitable for them behind their poarents backs. While I would be the first to say it's down the the parents to regulate this and be involved, why should we deliberately make it easier for kids to gain this media without consent, and make it more difficult for parents to control something they dont know about by allowing their children access to rated material?

You as well as I know that if retailers are not legally bound to refuse a sale then they won't. They want revenue, and denying an underage person will not get cash in their tills. Retailers cannot be relied upon on the basis of good faith, the only way to ensure that kids cannot buy games at the tillpoint is to make it law, and introduce penalties for breaking that law.

As for the rights of children, again a touchy issue, personally I can see we are at a difference of opinion whether it is the 'right' of a children to purchase a game already deemed unsuitable for them by a panel of people regarded as experts in the rating of adult material. I dont think that banning sale of media to underage people limits parental choices at all. Instead it helps enforce them. Let's say that your kid falls in with a bad crowd at school, and goes down to Best Buy or Whatever you Yanks have over there and buys GTA anyway. Yes you will feel angry as a parent, but isnt the store irresponsible for selling him the game anyway??

That's my view, I am sorry that our views don't entirely match on this issue.

@ illspirit

"Except there is no law here banning underage kids from going to movies. Any attempt to do so would be unconstitutional."

You serious?!
There's no law in America banning kids of 12 going to see an 18 rated movie?

Wow.
Sorry I was going on UK law, UK story after all.

I have a question, if a man was trying to sell porn to a 13 year old, would you stop him.











Now if you saw a man selling Grand theft auto to a 13 year old, would you stop him?

Something that everyone should remember, and I feel stupid even needing to say this.. is that the UK is not the US..

We do not have the same culture, nor the same government, nor the same idea of rights and freedoms that you guys do.

Now, I think that is people in the UK started banning games outright, and yet allowing movies through that had the same content... such as the Manhunt 2 debacle.. then things would be done, like they have been about Manhunt 2. We have systems in place to make sure that unjust ratings are sorted out, and they appear to work.

However we have legal repercussions for selling movies to people younger than they should be, just like we have repercussions for selling them knives, cigarettes, porn, and a variety of other things.. when I asked some friends of mine if they thought they same should apply to games, the answer was "umm... yeah.. duhh".

The fact of the matter is, we don't mind, for the most part. We don't mind and many of us in fact welcome the idea that the government would back up the ratings with law. Even the gamers. Generally speaking however, our system also has a tendency to stop stupid things such as the wholesale banning of video games from happening.

Its just a difference in cultures, which I think is something that the US posters here do not understand.. just because you would not accept it as a good thing for you're country, does not actually mean those in the UK will not accept it as a good thing for theirs. As far as most of us is concerned, having a rating system but NOT doing something to enforce is is contradictory. It sends the message "yeah, you SHOULD follow it.. but eh, don't worry!"

If you want an example, look at guns. A central part of your society, uproar ensues if people even suggest controlling or requiring safety features on them. In the UK, they are pretty much banned ouright, and nobody minds that I know off.. making lethal weapons illegal so that the police knows anyone holding one got it illegally? Cutting down on the numbers of weapons out there? "umm, yeah, duh".

Wouldn't work in your country, different culture, worked in ours.

"We do not have the same culture, nor the same government, nor the same idea of rights and freedoms that you guys do."

That explains the differences in the way regulatory measures such as these are interpreted by each of us, but it doesn't in any way justify those measures. Rights and freedoms should not be curtailed simply because some people think it's a good idea to do so, or because it agrees with one's culture. In that direction lies tyranny.

There should exist a compelling reason to regulate video games. I don't see one.

“Why have a ratings system if it’s not going to be enforced?”

It’s a question I see a lot. Here’s the answer: a ratings system should not restrict, only inform.

Luckily, that’s exactly what the ESRB does. The ratings are there to inform you of content so you can make an educated purchasing decision for yourself and your children. The age part of the rating is only there as a recommendation, not a rule. Ratings do not say “this game is inappropriate or harmful to players under a certain age.” That’s not for anyone but a parent to decide.

The point of a rating is information, not to keep content out of certain hands.

Another point I see brought up a lot is “but if the ratings aren’t enforced, kids could just buy adult games and there parents may be too crap at parenting to know.”

My response to that is: so what?

Seriously. So what? So a kid buys and plays GTA. So what? It’s not going to hurt him. I’ve never seen anything in the hundreds of games I’ve played or the dozens of studies I’ve read to indicate that mature games cause harm to children.


Andrew Eisen

It's worse than we thought!

http://deadpixelsontoast.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/leak-suggests-gordon-b...

the main benefit i see tbh is at least it gets ppl like JT n whatever off our backs and we can say for FACT that games are treated the SAME as movies when it comes to enforcement (with a BETTER rate!) so should be left alone to be artistic in terms of violent n sexual content just like movies.

Its the lesser of two evils.

@Andrew Eisen

I do actually agree, in part, with the "so what?" violent games and pornography didn't hurt me when I was fourteen, so I doubt they will anyone else... although I could probably understand the argument that I am slightly more aggressive and a "sexual deviant" because of it, I don't consider either of those things a bad thing. The ratings are there to inform, but they are there to inform parents, not children... and the parents are meant to be the one making the decisions about what their children can and cannot access. This means that barriers must be put in the way of the children accessing it on their own.. a label on a box does nothing if it is not backed up by law.

@illspirit

I just felt I had to mention it, since it often feels when the discussion here turns to other countries, that American's are unable to view them objectively and with a mind towards the culture of that country.. actually, its unfair of me to say "Americans" because, frankly, I'm probably as bad when I'm viewing stories about countries other than those I have lived in.

You make a good point about our Parliament.. it does seem as if some people here assume it has more power than it does. Its also worth pointing out that the House of Lords has a long history of kicking out laws that are patently stupid or kneejerk reactions to unproven theories such as "video games = violence!".

Thank you for the correction about guns, it is all rather strange to me so I'm not always aware of the details.

@NovaBlack

Yeah... that always confused me.. I mean, surely if the ages are to be different, the highest age should be sex... the act of, at least potentially, creating another life that must be cared for and raised into a functioning adult.

I know the topic has been dead for a while, but for all the people saying that we didn't vote for Gordon Brown... you are wrong.

When you vote, you vote for a PARTY, not for the INDIVIDUAL. Labour was voted into power, not Tony Blair. And since Tony is gone, Gordon Brown has taken over. He has no obligation whatsoever to hold a new election right now. The election will take place when the parties term is up, and no sooner. That is how it is supposed to work...

@ illspirit

At last, somebody on the other side of the big poind that actually it! It's so nice to finally see somebody point out the obvious. I salute you, sir [appluase]

To reiterate: nobody from the UK would presume to instruct an American on how their ratings system should be run. I've not read anybody at any time saying that the American regulators are somehow misguided and "ought" to back up the ESRB by law or legislate the sale of adult media to minors.

If only the same live-and-let-live attitude were applicable to a few of our North American cousins commenting about the British system. So, please excuse the following rant, as I just can't see any other way of getting the message across to a few usual suspects:

@ Sea dog

"...it doesn’t in any way justify those measures. Rights and freedoms should not be curtailed simply because some people think it’s a good idea to do so, or because it agrees with one’s culture."

The very idea that you personally think we cannot or should not decide what is permissible in our own society, and rather it be based upon American notions of "rights and freedoms" is arrogant beyond belief. Your values are not universal, nor are they objective - just like every other country. You do a disservice to Americans everywhere with such comments. Again, I thank illspirit for the breadth of his perception.

"There should exist a compelling reason to regulate video games. I don’t see one."

Just because you don't, doesn't preclude us from drawing our own national conclusions. Personally, I think it's an effective tool that actually helps rather than hinders parents, when enforced properly. Bear in mind it's legal for parents to buy an 18 rated game for their 11 year old child (for example), all the law does is call the shop keeper to account if they sold said game to that child if no parent was present. Don't agree? Fine! The British system isn't perfect and nobody would say you'd be wrong to do so.

@ Andrew Eisen

"Retailers have no responsibility to keep things I don’t want my children to have away from them. That’s my responsibility."

On this matter, there is a difference of opinion between our cultures. Our view is that since shopkeepers are already asked to prevent the sale of certain items (pornographic magazines, cigarettes, alcohol, as well as movies and some games) to minors, a precedent already exists. However, I agree with you completely that a debate ought to be had over whether allowing minors to see such content is actually a bad thing in the first place (my own view is that children a re usually a lot wiser than many adults give them credit for).

@ Stinking Kevin

"Maybe stricter is better if you’d prefer to rely on a Nanny State to keep you from seeing the wrong image or thinking the wrong thought."

This is a gross misrepresentation of the situation - exactly how does having a ratings system for games and movies backed up by law turn the British government into the Thought Police? It's effect is actually negligible, especially when you consider that by the time you reach 18 none of the restrictions apply anymore. You seem to imply that Britain does not have a free society. My position is that Britain and America have rather different "free societies" and it's spurious to suggest one is superior or more correct than the other.

"From my perspective, government-enforced censorship is never “better.” So “fact is,” your system may be “better” for people who are used to the idea of having the government determine which entertainment media they are and are not allowed to consume..."

I agree that's it's unfair and a misrepresentation of reality to state that one system is "better" than another - any system is credible so long as it has been chosen and supported by its respective society. However, the fact that you seem to imply that Britain is entirely populated by people desperate to be molly-coddled by a Nanny state is a) unbelievably small minded and b) offensive. I suggest you watch an episode of the BBC's Question Time to get a more informed view on how the British usually react to be told what to do by their own government if it goes against their wishes.

"...but you’re dead wrong if you think such a system would ever work in the States."

You are undoubtedly right and far be it for any non-US citizen to suggest such a thing.

[/rant]

Just wanted to add that one thing that has always made me giggle about my country, is that you can have sex at 16, but can't watch it on video till you're 18. So, obviously, like good citizens, we kept our eyes shut for two years....

Talking about silly age restriction in the US, u know that a kid can pick up a gun at the age of 16? But no porno till 18...

Can you see this situation happening...

A 16 yrs old kid walks into a general store in the US.

16 yr old kid: Hi, can I have some of those porno mags?
Store Clerk: How old are you?
16 yr old kid: I'm 16.
Store Clerk: Nope, sorry. You have to be 18 to buy that.
16 yr old kid: Hmmm... OK, can I have that gun over there?
Store Clerk: Sure thing. Is there anything else I can get you?
(kid loads the gun and points it at the clerk)
16 yr old kid: Yeah, I'll have some of those porno mags :)

@ L42yB

You do realise it's not quite that simple acquiring a gun licence in the States? I'm sure other restriction on the sale of firearms would apply as well...

It's particularly interesting because it implies that the ratings system used by the BBFC for video games is falling out of trust, either among Purchasers or among Developers, or possibly both.

That in itself promotes some very intriguing questions, such as 'why?'

@ L42yB Says:

"February 8th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Talking about silly age restriction in the US, u know that a kid can pick up a gun at the age of 16? But no porno till 18…

Can you see this situation happening…

A 16 yrs old kid walks into a general store in the US.

16 yr old kid: Hi, can I have some of those porno mags?
Store Clerk: How old are you?
16 yr old kid: I’m 16.
Store Clerk: Nope, sorry. You have to be 18 to buy that.
16 yr old kid: Hmmm… OK, can I have that gun over there?
Store Clerk: Sure thing. Is there anything else I can get you?
(kid loads the gun and points it at the clerk)
16 yr old kid: Yeah, I’ll have some of those porno mags "





HAHA spot on mate!! thats the best example of wierd standards ive heard in ages!

@ Zippy

There's a qualitative difference between censorship (i.e the suppression or deletion of material, which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive) and restricting the sale of certain media to minors.

@ Sea Dog

The very fact you subscribe to the notion of an objective morality only serves to underline the differences between our two positions. Again, I ask: who are you to judge what what is correct or incorrect for us (the UK)? Is that not the very definition of subjectivity?

Indeed, I suspect that you know very little about the "rights and needs" of British citizens having not experienced them first-hand, nor do I think you have a firm grasp on the exact "cultural pressures" within Britain today.

If am wrong, feel free to enlighten me. If I'm not, though, then your comments reflect those of a would-be cultural imperialist and I am glad you do not represent your fellow countrymen.

The fact that you believe in moral relativism tells me it's impossible to argue against you. After all, how do you argue morality against someone who reduces morality to a matter of opinion? Everybody has opinions; not everybody can be right.

I feel sorry for those in the minority who have no choice but to be subject to the majority's wishes, where "might makes right" is the only justification for the majority's position. People deserve better treatment than that.

@Sea Dog

So you get to decide what the people of another sovereign nation should have in the way of right's and freedoms? You, personally, and you're nation have the inalienable right to force your opinion's on the matter down everyone else's throat? Your way of doing thing is so infinitely superior to the rest of us that you must defend us from ourselves?

Try to wrap your head around a concept please... many people in the UK, many people in the entire world in fact, are sick and tired of having America's culture and concept of "right and wrong" forced down their throat via your nation's media outlets. Many of us from the UK and other nations who get by perfectly well as we are, are increasingly tired of watching our countries and cultures be so heavily influenced by yours. How would you like it if you went to school one day and heard some kid start singing God Save the Queen, honestly thinking it was his national anthem? Or claiming a whole set of rights and freedoms that do not exist in your nation because he saw them so much on TV from another nation while growing up, that he assumes he must have them and need them.

Many of us, feel it is essentially a form of cultural brainwashing, although I will admit I do not think that it is deliberate or intended. It is only natural for a nation's media to reflect the views of that nation's people and their culture. However, for a nation that so strongly promotes people's right to choose their own path, I find it amusing that you're media outlets and people in general are not more careful about the fact that they are constantly telling other people "we are right, you are wrong, do things our way!"

So heres a couple of ideas for you..

I do not want, nor do I need, nor do I ever want to live in a nation that gives me the right to own a gun.. not only would I constantly be fearing for my life, but I do not wish to live in a society which promotes the use of a stinking, dishonorable, cowardly weapon which has since its invention allowed people to kill others without effort nor the decency to look them in the eye first.

I do not want to live in a place where people are able to constantly and willfully promote hateful or verbal abuse of others as an "expression of their freedom of speech". I do not want to listen to children abusing their teachers, I do not want to listen to people abusing law enforcement officers, and I do not want to deal with people abusing me and claiming nobody can do anything about it.

You see, two major parts of your culture that I do not want, infact many people I know do not want.. I do however want my democratic monarchy, complete with House of Commons, House of Lords and the Royal Family. I value the fact that, while an elected body has major power, ultimate power rests at least in theory with a group of people who are not subject so easily to the random whim of the people. You may not like the idea, but it is not your place to decide that for me, or for any other person outside the boarders of your own country.

Now, I will admit, that I am not being very subjective... but you know what, I wouldn't want to force you to change your country and culture because I dislike a large part of it, I simply won't live there. So how about you stop telling us that ours is wrong? Right and Wrong are concepts defined solely and entirely by the culture in question, what is right to you, could be wrong to me, and we would both be "right" depending upon our culture.

"I have no power to make decisions for any sovereign nation, be it my own or any other. I just think a sovereign nation’s power to decide what their own people should have in the way of rights and freedoms should be limited by objective principles of right and wrong."

So, once again, you believe that your way of doing things is the right way, and everyone should do it.. and if they don't, they are wrong, bad people.

"Does that mean it’s okay to stone women to death for cheating on their husbands, provided the dominant culture considers such punishments appropriate?"

Do I think it's a thing I would want to see in my own culture? No. Does it make me sick to the stomach to think of someone doing that? Yes, killing someone for their crimes does in fact make me sick no matter what the crime.

However, when discussing cultures other than my own, I do attempt to at least remember that those cultures have their own history and reasons for how they are. I might express the fact that I don't like it, but I would always at least try and mention that hey... that's not my way of doing things, there are other ways, but its not my place to say that another culture is right or wrong.

Like it or not, cultures are almost universally ruled by the dominant majority, even if it is only by silent compliance. In fact, if you look through history, you will generally find that a nation being ruled by a pure minority opinion does not last, destroyed either by internal conflict or external invasion. Worrying constantly about individual rights, to be quite honest, gets in the way of a functioning society.. and while I welcome a certain amount of that for my own nation, I like the freedoms I do have, I do understand.. on a purely intellectual level (the only level anyone can understand something that have not personally experienced).. the fact that other people do not see it my way, that other nations have different cultures.

Please at least make some effort when discussing other people's cultures to separate your own personal emotions, wants and desires for yourself, from your assumptions for what other people should want for themselves and their culture.

@ Sea Dog:

"Does that mean it’s okay to stone women to death for cheating on their husbands, provided the dominant culture considers such punishments appropriate?"

Nice try - well done for avoiding the argument. That's not the issue here, nor is it the notion of objective versus subjective morality.

The issues here is that you personally think the UK should subscribe to your own standards because you personally presume to know what's best for us. Try defending that before jumping to moral extremes.

"If I argue, it’s because I think it’s true."

Agreed - but there is a world of differencing between "thinking" something is true and believing that you "know" something is true. The former allows for a margin of error, the latter doesn't. It's that absolutism that Thomas and I find objectionable on your part.

"Democracy without limits is tyranny. I do not support unlimited democracy."

Sorry, but this makes no sense. Please qualify.

"I’m saying your position on the importance of cultural values amounts to “might makes right”.

I;m not sure I follow, please qualify. My position on the importance of cultural values is actually identical with Thomas' - it's important to remember that the time and place of a person's birth has an inalienable affect on their worldview, so that whilst I may disagree with other cultures, I should not be so disrespectful as to claim that my way is objectively superior.

But again, you've dodged the question: how dare you presume to know what's best for a country you've not even visited?

"That makes me sad."

Interesting, why?

Perhaps you take my words to mean that if, presented, right infront of me, with someone being stoned to death.. I would stand idly by and do nothing about it. This could not be further from the truth, it would not be the first time I have stood in the way of a complete stranger being hurt.

However, that is my morality.. and that is not during an intellectual discussion, which this ultimately is. Nobody is being stoned to death here, therefore the fact that I would stand in the way of such a thing happening, regardless of the society it happened in, has no bearing. My opinion on if it is right and wrong, is just that, an opinion.

It makes me sad to think that someone honestly believes that morality is so black and white as you appear too.

"Perhaps you take my words to mean that if, presented, right infront of me, with someone being stoned to death.. I would stand idly by and do nothing about it. This could not be further from the truth, it would not be the first time I have stood in the way of a complete stranger being hurt."

No. What makes me sad is that you seem to think only people who are part of a culture are qualified to criticize that culture. I find that kind of attitude a great deal more arrogant than my own.

I'm not interested in defending my position against allowing the government to regulate what kinds of games minors are allowed to purchase. What I object to is the idea that such regulation is OK because a majority of people agree with it.

If you can't bring a better argument than "because that's what the British people want", then you are bringing no argument at all.

"Actually Sea Dog, that’s a pretty convincing argument as far as I’m concerned. Why would you deny us our democratic rights?"

I don't have the power to deny you anything. We're just talking here, after all. In any case, I have already stated I don't believe in unlimited democracy. That a majority of people support a particular policy is not enough to justify that policy. Otherwise, *any* policy is acceptable, no matter how unfair, provided enough people agree to it.

"I’ve a feeling that all this will be clearer to you when you grow up a bit."

Don't patronize me. Mature people don't make those kinds of statements.

If you have a democracy where they get to choose by majority unless you think they're wrong, in which case you overrule the majority for their own good, isn't that kind of not really democracy at all?

More of a benevolent dictatorship by the sound of it. "You can do what you like until you start being silly, then I'll step in and make the right choices for you".

:)

Just found it amusiing. Oh, and as a Brit, Brown is a headline seeker, and a tabloid pleaser. He's a populist, even moreso than his predecessor. We'll get hot air, lots of 'Won't they think of the children?' type speeches, and no real action, going by past history.

At last, a valid argument! I salute you! Well, I can't fault your conclusion. That is to say, neither of us are in a position to judge this situation objectively, and we both may be wrong. I can't disagree with you on that one - they're merely our personal opinions, after all.

"That is to say, neither of us are in a position to judge this situation objectively, and we both may be wrong."

Then again, one of us may be right.

"3P1C PH41L"

How old are you... 13?

"Maybe, but you’ve already said, and I quote: 'I don’t know what’s best for the UK'"

Yes. I don't presume to know what's best for an entire country, but I have no doubt that it's wrong for the UK government to regulate video games based on nothing more than cultural values. Like I said, "a country’s values are irrelevant in matters of right and wrong."

Frankly, I couldn't care less what's best "for the UK", for I don't think the UK -- or any other country -- has the right to impose a particular set of values upon its citizens, unless there's a *very* good reason to do so.

"Surely you’re not about to argue that being raised in one particular society or another doesn’t affect how you think, making you turn out differently? You’re not saying that society has no intrinsic cultural effect upon it’s members, are you?"

No. On those particular points I agree.

Huh? I said I agree with you on those points.

[...] The good news is that White has criticized the nanny state approach to dealing with video games which he sees looming with next month’s release of TV shrink Tanya Byron’s (left) British government-sponsored report. [...]

[...] The good news is that White has criticized the nanny state approach to dealing with video games which he sees looming with next month’s release of TV shrink Tanya Byron’s (left) British government-sponsored report. [...]