The would-be-censor faces censure

Darat

Lackey
Staff member
Darat
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
126,099
Location
South East, UK
Last edited:
Yeah, and the D&D Is Evil people are still around too.

You have to wonder, sometimes, just how nutty the human race can get.
 
I can't believe the wide variety of people carrying the "video game violence" torch. They've proven over and over that the majority of the people playing violent videogames aren't the ones out performing violence on the populace. This is simply just another scapegoat for bad parenting. It's been tried with Rock & Roll, fast-cars, motorcycles and any number of "counter-culture" icons.

It's ridiculous to assert that videogame violence is causing real-time violence otherwise we'd have to shield all those impressionable kids from the nightly news. It's important to keep all American teens away from any images of violence as recreation otherwise they're likely to invade a foreign country and start a war!
 
Mephisto said:
It's important to keep all American teens away from any images of violence as recreation otherwise they're likely to invade a foreign country and start a war!
Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly what Bush wants them to do?
 
Here's a fun fact: Sen Hillary Clinton, who needs to be on the record with some moral outrage by 2008 demanded a inquiry into the hot coffee scandal.

The head of the ESA(Entertainment Software Association) holds a $1000 a plate fund raiser for her.

She hasn't been all that loud about the problem since.

If only the game industry had the money to bribe all the polititions, there'd be laws protecting the developers similar to the laws protecting gun manufacturers.
 
One of the most surreal internet moments I've ever had was watching a C-Span (I think) link of a conference held by video game critic Senator Lieberman as he played X-rated clips from various video games.
 
Luke T. said:
One of the most surreal internet moments I've ever had was watching a C-Span (I think) link of a conference held by video game critic Senator Lieberman as he played X-rated clips from various video games.
Click to expand...


Some people are just afraid of nature, simulated or otherwise.
 
Luke T. said:
One of the most surreal internet moments I've ever had was watching a C-Span (I think) link of a conference held by video game critic Senator Lieberman as he played X-rated clips from various video games.
Click to expand...

Try watching the official censor of your country play a selection of video clips from one of your games that they'd re-edited to portray sequences that would never occur in the game - and have him claim, when it was strongly pointed out what he had shown did not represent the game, that it was another example for why a certificate shouldn't be granted, because that's what someone could do with content from the game!
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Try watching the official censor of your country play a selection of video clips from one of your games that they'd re-edited to portray sequences that would never occur in the game - and have him claim, when it was strongly pointed out what he had shown did not represent the game, that it was another example for way a certificate shouldn't be granted, because that's what someone could do with content from the game!
Click to expand...

do tell...
 
brodski said:
do tell...
Click to expand...


The BBFC (a private company that has the statutory powers to censor and apply classification to certain classes of "video games") refused to classify the game Carmageddon, we took them to appeal during which he presented the video of sequences from the game that were edited in such a way that they created (in my opinion) a distorted view of what the game playing experience actually was about. You can read a lot about the history of it all – search for Carmageddon BBFC Ferman – you’ll even find a couple of references in Hansard! E.g.:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo980209/text/80209-23.htm

...snip...

Section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 charges the Secretary of State with the responsibility for ensuring that adequate arrangements are made for appeal against classification decisions. The procedure for appeals is laid out in a previous letter of designation. However, the 1984 Act requires only that provision be made for appeals by those submitting video works for classification. That makes the appeals system extremely one-sided and biased in favour of film, video and computer game producers. For example, although the BBFC recently refused to grant a certificate to the gratuitously violent computer game, "Carmageddon"--which, as we have heard, involves a driver playing a computer game which lets the driver run down, yes, defenceless pedestrians, the blind, and animals--the manufacturers were able to appeal and overturn the decision, despite the protests of groups such as the Automobile Association, which had no way of formally voicing their concerns. Other groups, such as the NSPCC, fall into the same category. On that occasion,

9 Feb 1998 : Column 941
even James Ferman, the director of the BBFC, attacked the U-turn, saying that the game featured "gross violence".

...snip...
Click to expand...

Some words from one of the examiners at the time, Gianni Zamo:

...snip...

Additionally, a game's classification also depends on how 'balanced' it is. Do the positive elements of the game outweigh the negatives or vice-versa. A game which, for example, rewards anti-social behaviour without consequence is likely to be placed in a more restrictive category than one which gives free rein to aggressive impulses - Carmageddon being a prime example. The concern here is mostly to do with possible effects on impressionable children and younger people coupled to a psychological model which suggests that rewarding anti-social behaviour at an early stage of development is likely to have a lasting impact upon them in later life and, consequently, on the greater society at large.

...snip...
Click to expand...

What this reveals is the curious double standards that I believe the BBFC (at least then) applied; after all we wanted an 18 classification which was and is a legal classification making it an offence for anyone to sell such a game to under 18s, yet a lot of their arguments about why the game shouldn't be granted a classification was about the effect on children!

It was probably the singular most interesting thing I've ever had to deal with and the professional satisfaction of winning the appeal after quite literally months and months of work, well I'll probably never quite get the same buzz again.

(I hadn't looked up any references to the whole shenanigans for quite a few years but I notice some interesting not-quite right summaries have started to appear. I may spend some time getting some documentation together to correct the slightly wrong summaries and accounts of the game, the process and the appeal.)
 
You almost have to love the double standard that exist among politicians who are complaining about videogame violence - I wonder just how many of them voted FOR the war in Iraq?

I just can't understand the reasoning behind it all. They (the anti-violence groups) want to tone down the violence in ANIMATED video games so "the children" don't become inured to actual violence, yet the same politicians allow military recruiters to garner names and likely candidates for recruitment from public middle schools. What kind of violence do people think they'll encounter in the military? Nothing makes one so unmoved by violence and death as war, yet we have supposedly mature politicians raising this red herring - go figure!

(edited to add) Thanks for that, Darat. I didn't realize that the same problem existed in the UK. I've also seen them speak of violent clips in games out of context and strung together to emphasize the violence.
 
Last edited:
Censorship is one of my favourite debates, I have to say.
I do agree that some content has to be kept away from children. But I think the real problem is the lack of media education. Let's take a perfect example: Me! ;)
I grew up with death metal, video games and splatter movies. And although my parents would have never approved (I was enjoyng these things secretly) they seem to have done something right with their education, since I'm not yet a mass murderer. As a matter of fact, I haven't even been in any sort of fight in my whole life.
I think that's down to the fact that I always considered it entertainment and nothing more. Nothing that replaces reality or should be tried out at home or inspire.

But media education is probably a bit more difficult to do than just ban things...

FR
 
I find it odd that the area of censorship that is not commonly discussed is that of real world events.

A movie or video game distributor can get away with some seriously heavy violence on screen. (and I'm not making a moral judgement on that) but the most heavily censored images are those from the real world. I don't know about in the rest of the world, but images beamed back from foreign wars are subject to very extreme censorship in the UK. Perhaps people would be less willing to support war if they had a clearer idea of the suffering it causes? The very censorship of these images dulls the horror of a war many miles away. Images of what actually happens when someone, say, steps on a landmine or gets in the way of an M16 at upteen bullets a minute might make people a little less willing to accept war as an answer to the worlds problems.
 
Excellent Point!

3point14 said:
I find it odd that the area of censorship that is not commonly discussed is that of real world events.

A movie or video game distributor can get away with some seriously heavy violence on screen. (and I'm not making a moral judgement on that) but the most heavily censored images are those from the real world. I don't know about in the rest of the world, but images beamed back from foreign wars are subject to very extreme censorship in the UK. Perhaps people would be less willing to support war if they had a clearer idea of the suffering it causes? The very censorship of these images dulls the horror of a war many miles away. Images of what actually happens when someone, say, steps on a landmine or gets in the way of an M16 at upteen bullets a minute might make people a little less willing to accept war as an answer to the worlds problems.
Click to expand...

Censorship usually entails some form of nudity or violence, but who set those standards in the first place? The Puritans. Why do we still measure those things we feel need censure by their standards? For instance, I find extreme poverty and pediatric malnutrition offensive, but you'll find any number of advertisements using both to solicit donations (I donate without the emotional hooks).

I also happen to find war and its resultant carnage incredibly offensive, yet people don't hesitate to offer up their sons and daughters to the meat grinder because it's attached to a nationalistic fervor. I only WISH the American people could see the results of their blind faith in a lying leader. I would like nothing more than to have every single television station in the U.S. (and Britain) in my control for 24 hours. I would run NONSTOP images of the everyday carnage in Iraq - let them see what an IED does to a crowd of people (and not just the stock footage of gurneys and ambulances either), let them see the piles of executed Iraqis who just wanted a job, let them see the bloated corpses of children amidst the rubble of an air strike. I would take and rub their faces in the mangled body of an American soldier and tell them they should be thankful they can't experience the accompanying smells.

This is precisely the reason that the U.S. doesn't allow too much graphic footage back from the war - they would lose their support (what little is left) from the people back home.

Amazing how the governments two powerful countries believe that videogame violence adversely affects young minds, but don't hesitate to send those young minds into actual combat!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom