The Political Game: The Battle of Britain

I don't know why you guys are fighting about the first ammendment in the comments. If it was written in stone instead of on paper, would it really change anything?

Anyway...

The only part of the first ammendment that is relevant to this story is... In the US, the government is not allowed to ban a videogame, for any reason. In the UK, without the first ammendment, the government can.

Anything that could lead to Jack Thompson moving to Liverpool is okay with me.

You know, for all the hoo hah at the end of the day, its not a big issue, it happens, games aren't considered art, big whoop wanna fight about it? (Ok admittedly I do, but then again I dropped out of college because my fine art tutor who told us 'fine art is anything' insisted manga and video games can't be art).

The other game that got banned, I believe it was Thrill Kill or some title barely anyone remembers. In the end that got released in an albeit less over the top form. Its not like they are banning V for Vendetta (the comic) or George Orwell's works or Half-Life 2 (which mirrors Orwellian visions of the future quite well) or anything that actually encourages us to stand up against the government, they are banning a game where the only premise is to kill people in a gruesome manner. Ok its a double standard they don't apply it to films, but what are you gonna do. Besides those of us that want to play it, will find a way to play it.

the real issue is that in the US freedom costs $1.05, whereas in the UK it costs 0.516075 GBP.

I am quite remiss about this entire situation. The existence of the BBFC is a conundrum I cannot wrap my head around. The existence can only mean one of two things:

1. British people are incredibly stupid.
2. British people are incredibly lazy.

True, it could be both, however, neither of those explanations fit particularly well.

Let us consider first the British people are incredibly stupid theory. If Brits are so stupid they feel they are unable to determine what forms of entertainment they are able to watch that they need to create a board to do it for them, the decisions of said board are now suspect. How can any member of that board, which comes from a society of stupid people, chosen by stupid people, be more competent than the stupid people that picked them to make the decisions? Furthermore, if British people were stupid, they would lack the cognative capability of running a society, let alone creating the BBFC to do the thinking for them.

So, we have determined that Brits are not stupid people. How about the other argument, that Brits are incredibly lazy people? That one doesn't make too much sense either. Lazy people would be able to keep basic functions, like running water, going, let alone keeping an entire society from falling apart from sheer sloth.

So, it is established that Brits are, for the most part (every society has its exceptions) intelligent and industrious people, so why does the BBFC even exist? Brits are smart people, they are therefore able to make their own decisions on matters of tasteful entertainment. So why is it the BBFC not only exists, but is given broad legal powers to decide what the public can and cannot see?

Seriously, I'm confused here.

If they were breathing on my neck, yes, but that's a whole different issue. If they were at every street corner, no.

Well that was frankly a poorly written article full of speculation, opinion, and nothing to back it up what so ever. Apart from coming off like a whiny little boy who's been told he can't play with his favourite toy, the author makes huge leaps from subject to subject with no tangible connection.

I want to start by pointing out that Manhunt 2 is only the second game in the history of the BBFC that has been banned. For a frame of reference the other one was called Struggle In Bondage. Secondly, I'd say the BBFC has done a fantastic job. Not once have I played a game and questioned the rating they've given it. Obviously that's just my opinion.

So some facts then. The BBFC is independant, meaning it is not part of the government. Therefore, politics shouldn't effect it. Regarding the Manhunt killing, the papers sensationalised it and it was the victim, not the murderer who owned the game. While the current inquiry into Children and Games and Internet Porn is not due to complete until March, several BBC articles, and TV segments seem to indicate that the results currently show a lack of education among parents, who seem to think games are *just* games, and that the ratings aren't as important as with films.

Back to Manhunt 2, it is well known we are less tolerant of violence in our media and more tolerant of sex than the US. Personally I'm happy with this as sex is natural, we'll probably all do it at some point, killing people is not. Also I fail to see how the Church of England controversy has anything to do with violence in games, let alone Manhunt.

Lastly I want to say I was originally a critic of the Manhunt 2 ban, however I am now a convert. I'm getting fed up of reading all the stick the government and the BBFC continue to get for doing there jobs. I don't have kids, but I want to someday, and the work by everyone involved certainly makes me feel a whole lot better about it.

The trouble with banning you just push it underground they should regulate it but not ban it, at least most of the time you can find it in Germany its not jsut displayed in the open.

The UK needs to take that approach make all R rated stuff something hat can be displayed in public, then you can buy it all you want.

Few quick tidbits:

First off, road are NOT public. The government owns them. What they do is they just allow their citizens to use them. If they were truly public and a criminal was hanging out there, you would not be able to arrest him because he is on public property. By having private ownership being made public, they can slap the charge on the guy of "trespassing state ground" and arrest the guy. This happens all the time. This is why if you go to a parking lot, a park, or a street you can be charged for being on "private property".

Second, I want you Brits to stop yammering about how horrible America is and then kiss your countries ass like its a saint. Yes, America is very fucked up right now. Most Americans (way to generalize that we are all Bush lovers BTW) know the country is fucked up. But ask your selfs this...if the UK had the same power, money and influence America currently has do you think they would be using it for good? Do you think if any other country got this much power they would bring about world piece?

Bullshit! If the UK got that they would revert back to their old taxing and imperialistic selfs, constantly kicking the shit out of other countries, forcing trade and fucking people over. In fact, that is what America is. We are UK Junior. If you wanna know why we are acting this way sometimes, look in the mirror.

Now, I want you all to imagine this. You like Orange Juice? It taste good to you, right? So you drink it all the time, right?

Now all of a sudden, the Government bans Orange juice because OJ has been shown to cause homicidal tendencies to 1% of the population so nobody now can use it.

Now think there, they band something you like. You do not have a choice now, you cannot drink OJ because some committee has said you cannot. And think about it...you have no had any homicide tendencies and you have been drinking this stuff for years. You could not hurt a fly. So why ban it? Because someone else drank OJ and did something bad, so now you cannot drink it too?

So you try to defend the OJ, but then people who did not like OJ to begin with and live inside the government's asshole supports the rule and makes it look like you are some homicide maniac who like OJ.

Point is, so you think Manhunt 2 is a bad game? Fine, I think Halo 3 is a horrible game whose game disk I should use as a coaster. But just because someone thinks something is bad, does it make it bad? Or perhaps they have different tastes.

I like Manhunt. I love the story and game play of those games, I love the settings and I love the messages it has about society. How we glorify violence and how horrible we are as human beings with commercialism and depravity.

I have been looking forward to Manhunt 2 not only because of glowing previews, but because the story makes me want to discover why the government created the Pickman Bridge and what is going to happen to Danny.

I also am a pacifist, never got into a physical fight with anyone in my life. I also know the difference between a bunch of polygons and reality. I am a grown ass person, I know what I want and what I do not like.

So why take away my choice?

The other game to be banned was actually the original version of Carmageddon. Thrill Kill was never even submitted for rating in any country because EA aquired the developer and decided that it didn't fit in with their plans for a future of blan carbon-copy dating.

Carmageddon was only allowed to be released after the game was last-minute changed to replace the pedestrians with zombies, and even large chunks of the manual were blotted out (seriously!) Then the appeal was won so the Carmageddon expansion fixed the zombies back to pedestrians (which anyone with access to the internet had already done).

Ironically, "carbon copy dating" is an accurate description of EA's business model. The Madden development team consists of one guy with a Sharpie marker writing an 8 on copies of Madden 2007.

I don`t think the author of the article wrongly linked the British goverment and the Church of England. It`s about authorities that come down on games all of a sudden. Its a new kind of media, the guys in the white jackets haven`t even figured out what kind of influence TV has on youth, that`s why they are trying to censor games. Afraid of the unknown or overly cautious, who`s to say?

Woo yeah! Freedom is awesome! All the way with the USA!!!

America is so great it allows morons like Jack Thompson to become a lawyer, and remain a lawyer.

In the UK Thompson would never have past the Bar exam. Even if he managed, the way he treats the courts, judges and fellow lawyers would have him in contempt of court years ago...

But hey, that's idiocracy for you.

Sorry, did I say idiocracy? I meant democracy.

Just think, if the American's hadn't instigated an uprising and took over their continent, we wouldn't be in this mess!
If the German's hadn't decided that they wanted to be a super power as well, the British would still control pretty much all of the world and we would be happy(ish)!

I want the BBFC to be more like the American version: an opinion body, not a law-placing body.

"Slavery was just the straw that broke the camels back. In 10 or so years you would have seen the same shifting ideals in the south (as far as the ethicality of slavery) that you saw in the north. If that decision had been come to due to the popular opinion, instead of forced on the citizenry by a civil war that didn't work out, you would have seen far less civil rights issues when it came to the black people. Instead, southern folk took out all their frustrations on losing the war on the now freed populace.

Make no mistake, had the south succeeded in winning the civil war, we'd all be boned now in completely different ways. But we'd still have no slavery.

Again, slavery isn't what the civil war was about. It was about States rights and the freedom to govern ourselves separately from the federal government. The united states would be better off now if the states had half the rights now that they had 150 years ago."

I'm sorry, I was going to have a rant about the 1st ammednment (gist = A law iself is only words on paper, for it to matter it has to be enforced and preferably enforceable. Likewise, a sentiment can exist without a law. England has no 1st ammendment and yet people expect to be able to speak their mind, though we may NEED a first ammendment it doesn't mean an Englishman CAN'T speak his mind about e.g. The BBFC) But frankly, I cannot let the above quoted bull-poopy fly.

Southern apologists often turn up shouting about "states rights" being violated by the union and this being the ultimate cause of the U.S. civil war, they ignore all the rights the confederate government violated during the war. They ignore the Richmond governments imposistion - by confederate federal mandate - of conscription, confiscation of private property, stamp tax, suppresion of free speech (latent unionists etc) and more whilst conveniently forgeting that the only noticeable right that wasn't squashed (when it was deemed necessary) was that of the right to hold slaves. Even going back before the formation of the confederacy, it's constituent states were passing laws to ban the distribution of anti-slavery literature (Can you say anti-first-ammendment?)
Our friend Crono seems sure that:

"If that decision [banning slavery] had been come to due to the popular opinion, instead of forced on the citizenry by a civil war that didn't work out, you would have seen far less civil rights issues when it came to the black people. Instead, southern folk took out all their frustrations on losing the war on the now freed populace"

Again, he conveniently forgets that Lincoln was elected with this as his stated plank regarding slavery:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

It amazes me that peoople can still insist the north "Provoked" or even somehow started the war when the confederacy fired on fort sumter simply because the federal troops refused to leave, Lincoln was elected with a plurality - despite the fact the republican party was actually BANNED in half of the south - insisting that they only anti-slavery measure his party intended to impose was blocking the admission of new territories that permitted slavery (this was also entirely constitutional, the senate then had the right to decide who was admitted to the union). Imposition of emancipation my ass. The proclomation happened two years into the war when the confederacy had already began confiscating it's own citizens slaves to work on confederate fortifications.

It always dissapoints me when I actually have to fill people in on their own history...As Blooh suggested to you Crono', go and read McHhereson's "The battle cry of freedom" It's the single best summary of the U.S. civl war and immediate ante-bellum period.

The idea that if the U.S. civil war hadn't happened slavery would have bled to death anyway through various economic factors is by no means a sure thing. Moreover, if the Union hadn't crushed the confederacy you'd have had states the basically though they could do what they liked in the face of the federal government and New york might have seceded by now because most of it's pop seems to hate the "Bible belt" states. F-ing anarachy, man L:(

'The organization's bureaucrat-in-chief, David Cooke, cited the game's "bleakness and callousness of tone," whatever that means.'

After some rigorous mental acrobatics, I think I've figured it out: it means that the game's tone is bleak and callous. Why oh why must these pesky bureaucrats speak in riddles?