New Zealand Bans Manhunt Game
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">And they seemed so nice...</div> <a href='http://www.censor.co.nz/news15.html' target='_blank'>http://www.censor.co.nz/news15.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->17.12.03
How the banning of Manhunt affects you
A classification of "objectionable" means that the game is banned in New Zealand because the Office determined that its availability was "likely to be injurious to the public good."
Every classification is tailored to remedy the injury that could be caused if a publication were to be made available to the public. The injury that the Office found Manhunt likely to cause could not be remedied by anything short of a ban. The legal consequences that flow from a ban reflect the gravity of the harm likely to be caused by the game's availability.
In this case, the Office decided that
the freedom of expression is outweighed by likelihood of injury to the public good that could result from this game's availability. The length of time it takes to complete the game, and the necessity to repeat the killings in ever more gory fashion on each level if one does not complete that level at first attempt, increases exposure to material that initially disturbs, but which must be accommodated, to complete the game. A player's power both to initiate violence and to control the level of violence is part of the process by which this accommodation is made. To succeed in this game, a player, regardless of age or maturity, must learn over an extended period of time to acquiesce in, tolerate, or even enjoy, the violence he or she inflicts.
One of the consequences of the ban is that it is now illegal to possess Manhunt in New Zealand. Anyone who possesses this game is liable to a fine of $2,000 (s131). Anyone who possesses Manhunt and exhibits or displays it to someone under the age of 18 is liable to imprisonment for one year or a fine of $20,000 (s127).
Anyone who supplies, distributes, exhibits, displays, supplies, possesses for the purpose of supply or advertises Manhunt, knowing that it is objectionable, could be imprisoned for up to a year or fined $20,000. Incorporated distributors and retailers could face a fine of $50,000 (s124).
A game classified as "objectionable" cannot be legally imported either. Objectionable publications, including Manhunt, are "prohibited imports" under the Customs and Excise Act 1996. The Customs Service has the power to seize all prohibited imports, regardless of how they arrive at the border. A person who buys Manhunt on an overseas trip and tries to bring it into New Zealand, and anyone who has ordered it from a website, risks not only having the game seized, but also 6 months in jail or a fine of $10,000 (s209 of the Customs and Excise Act).
Bans are not lightly entertained. When they are imposed, it is because the Office can see no other way of mitigating the risk of injury to the public good. In this case, the need to protect the greater public good from injury required the sacrifice of the right of individuals to entertain themselves with Manhunt's gameplay of sadistic and gory killings.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The best part is this line: <b>In this case, the need to protect the greater public good from injury required the sacrifice of the right of individuals to entertain themselves with Manhunt's gameplay of sadistic and gory killings</b>
I demand that they ban themselves from watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy, filmed in New Zealand, and packed full of gratuitous gory killings which are far more realistic in depiction than a video game could ever be. Hypocrite much?
Your thoughts, especially for the Kiwi posters - I know you're out there! Since when should any video game be banned? And what's different between this and a gory movie, gory book, gory greeting card, etc?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->17.12.03
How the banning of Manhunt affects you
A classification of "objectionable" means that the game is banned in New Zealand because the Office determined that its availability was "likely to be injurious to the public good."
Every classification is tailored to remedy the injury that could be caused if a publication were to be made available to the public. The injury that the Office found Manhunt likely to cause could not be remedied by anything short of a ban. The legal consequences that flow from a ban reflect the gravity of the harm likely to be caused by the game's availability.
In this case, the Office decided that
the freedom of expression is outweighed by likelihood of injury to the public good that could result from this game's availability. The length of time it takes to complete the game, and the necessity to repeat the killings in ever more gory fashion on each level if one does not complete that level at first attempt, increases exposure to material that initially disturbs, but which must be accommodated, to complete the game. A player's power both to initiate violence and to control the level of violence is part of the process by which this accommodation is made. To succeed in this game, a player, regardless of age or maturity, must learn over an extended period of time to acquiesce in, tolerate, or even enjoy, the violence he or she inflicts.
One of the consequences of the ban is that it is now illegal to possess Manhunt in New Zealand. Anyone who possesses this game is liable to a fine of $2,000 (s131). Anyone who possesses Manhunt and exhibits or displays it to someone under the age of 18 is liable to imprisonment for one year or a fine of $20,000 (s127).
Anyone who supplies, distributes, exhibits, displays, supplies, possesses for the purpose of supply or advertises Manhunt, knowing that it is objectionable, could be imprisoned for up to a year or fined $20,000. Incorporated distributors and retailers could face a fine of $50,000 (s124).
A game classified as "objectionable" cannot be legally imported either. Objectionable publications, including Manhunt, are "prohibited imports" under the Customs and Excise Act 1996. The Customs Service has the power to seize all prohibited imports, regardless of how they arrive at the border. A person who buys Manhunt on an overseas trip and tries to bring it into New Zealand, and anyone who has ordered it from a website, risks not only having the game seized, but also 6 months in jail or a fine of $10,000 (s209 of the Customs and Excise Act).
Bans are not lightly entertained. When they are imposed, it is because the Office can see no other way of mitigating the risk of injury to the public good. In this case, the need to protect the greater public good from injury required the sacrifice of the right of individuals to entertain themselves with Manhunt's gameplay of sadistic and gory killings.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The best part is this line: <b>In this case, the need to protect the greater public good from injury required the sacrifice of the right of individuals to entertain themselves with Manhunt's gameplay of sadistic and gory killings</b>
I demand that they ban themselves from watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy, filmed in New Zealand, and packed full of gratuitous gory killings which are far more realistic in depiction than a video game could ever be. Hypocrite much?
Your thoughts, especially for the Kiwi posters - I know you're out there! Since when should any video game be banned? And what's different between this and a gory movie, gory book, gory greeting card, etc?
Comments
While it may desensitize I would readily agree that it doesn't lead to violent behavior. Violent people from my observation already have a violent nature and while maybe someone could argue that a violent video game may some how act as a catalyst, I would not believe that it would actually start or begin a violent behavior.
Simply just a bunch of ignorant politicians who know nothing of video games outside of general conjecture rather than substantial evidence. No one would want to get rid or ban the film industry, so lets just blame video games since it won't upset the general public outside of teens and some twenty year olds.
I'm pretty sure from the description they have actually taken a look at the game from a first hand point of view.
The real outrage should be whether book/movie/other media can be banned by a government.
Politicians and parents will usually shoot for the simple blame lay-up, since it neatly absolves them of responsibility.
If your kid snaps and mows down a bunch of his classmates, it's pretty naive to think that they would have lived a full, healthy, sane life had they just traded in their copy of 'Grand Theft Auto' for 'Mary-Kate and Ashley, Sweet 16: Licensed to Drive'.
And we all know that Monse totally owns <i>both</i> of those games
Ultimately, if you see this like a publication ban of art, then going by their description in M. Evil's article, I would liken this game to an interactive death camp, replete with nefarious lime ditches, concrete chambers, and incinerators. Umm, so how is this "ban" a bad thing actually? Do we defend the KKK, neo nazi groups, and religious fanatics rights to publish what they please to assymilate our culture into theirs in USA, Canada, and Britain? Does New Zealand have to be like us on this issue or our they already?
Finally, I care about games but this one sounds like such a "winner" with its repetitive level design that its no wonder it didn't register on my "To Buy" list of games. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
As I said earlier, few games are ever banned here and we generally tend to get 99% of what is made. I think the only other games that have been banned are postal and postal 2 (maybe phantasmagoria too). We still have the likes of GTA 3 and other highly violent games. Unlike in the likes of Soldier of Fortune 2 or whatever, you are ENCOURAGED to kill people in massively violent ways in order to actually progress. That combined with the general theme of the game probably got it banned.
In all events though, I certainly won't miss the game having played through a fair chunk of it. I don't think most others will either with the large amount of good PS2 games available anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> demand that they ban themselves from watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy, filmed in New Zealand, and packed full of gratuitous gory killings which are far more realistic in depiction than a video game could ever be. Hypocrite much?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would suggest you actually play manhunt. There is a difference between smacking out someones knees, and then beating their brains out all over the pavement, to what you see in Lord of the Rings. In fact, none of the violence is LotR matches some of the completely over the top gore of manhunt. When people say that game is violent, they mean the game is *violent*.
So they should also ban NS, CS, TFC, Quake, pac-man, etc? They meet your criteria. And nothing is ever successfully banned here (if by here you mean the US) - agenda much?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> would suggest you actually play manhunt. There is a difference between smacking out someones knees, and then beating their brains out all over the pavement, to what you see in Lord of the Rings. In fact, none of the violence is LotR matches some of the completely over the top gore of manhunt. When people say that game is violent, they mean the game is *violent*. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because having your head lopped off and seeing 8 arrows sticking out of your chest is certainly less violent. Hypocricy alert, hypocricy alert, AROOGGAAAH, DIVE DIVE DIVE!!!
And BM is right, I <i>do</i> own at Mary Kate and Ashley games - 'Shopping Spree', 'Make-up Mistresses', 'The Sims: Twin Children of the Corn' , and of course the new cash in on the WW2 genre, 'Mary Kate and Ashley kick Hitler's ****ing *** back to ****ing Berlin'
So they should also ban NS, CS, TFC, Quake, pac-man, etc? They meet your criteria. And nothing is ever successfully banned here (if by here you mean the US) - agenda much?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yay, let's take what I said too far and too specific. Allow me to elaborate, as I didn't think I would have to. Manhunt takes killing to a whole new level, as Aegeri cited. It is more than just simple killing. It's killing and then beating the living **** out of the dead body. Last I checked those games you mentioned don't do that.
But! If New Zealand thought they did, they by all means have a right to ban them completely. It is, once again, their country, and if someone from NZ isn't upset, I don't see why we should be.
And by here I meant this article, showing the steps NZ has taken to remove the game from its lands.
So theres not alot of rationale for banning it other than saying they don't like it.
As I said earlier, few games are ever banned here and we generally tend to get 99% of what is made. I think the only other games that have been banned are postal and postal 2 (maybe phantasmagoria too). We still have the likes of GTA 3 and other highly violent games. Unlike in the likes of Soldier of Fortune 2 or whatever, you are ENCOURAGED to kill people in massively violent ways in order to actually progress. That combined with the general theme of the game probably got it banned.
In all events though, I certainly won't miss the game having played through a fair chunk of it. I don't think most others will either with the large amount of good PS2 games available anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> demand that they ban themselves from watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy, filmed in New Zealand, and packed full of gratuitous gory killings which are far more realistic in depiction than a video game could ever be. Hypocrite much?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would suggest you actually play manhunt. There is a difference between smacking out someones knees, and then beating their brains out all over the pavement, to what you see in Lord of the Rings. In fact, none of the violence is LotR matches some of the completely over the top gore of manhunt. When people say that game is violent, they mean the game is *violent*. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aegeri, you are naive.
Sure you don't care that they banned something you have no interest for, but the point is, wait till they ban something you DO like, and then you will hear a few (such as yourself) complain about it, but no one else sees a reason 'to care'.
If politicans can take away a basic freedom once, they can do it again.
Indifference/Ignorance is one of the worst forms of evil, guess you didn't study the holocaust enough...
Groups against games tend to quote things that state "beyond a doubt" that games do cause violence in society, but then, later on in the same article, something like "But further study is needed" comes up, showing that they actually have no idea what they're on about. In fact, the only true scientific studies into games prove that games increase intelligence and other aspects (such as co-ordination and even social skills).
If someone snaps and kills someone, the chances are they've played a game at some point in their lives. You can dig around and find out that they played that game, then blame it on that. Obviously, this is as stupid as pointing to someone who has cancer and saying "He went to school, therefore school causes cancer". It really annoys me.
While it may desensitize I would readily agree that it doesn't lead to violent behavior. Violent people from my observation already have a violent nature and while maybe someone could argue that a violent video game may some how act as a catalyst, I would not believe that it would actually start or begin a violent behavior.
Simply just a bunch of ignorant politicians who know nothing of video games outside of general conjecture rather than substantial evidence. No one would want to get rid or ban the film industry, so lets just blame video games since it won't upset the general public outside of teens and some twenty year olds. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe there was a shooting in Germany because some guy had an "episode" where he thought he was a Terrorist playing Counter-Strike.
Also, games do influence people. Of course, everything else influences people as well. And forlorn, governments have taken away basic freedoms again and again. The holocaust isn't really ignorance, it was just playing on the people's emotions and feelings at the time.
Not really, I see you've failed to read my post, then again you never read anything other than what you write. I learnt a long time ago you live in your own fantasy world that tends to ignore what goes on outside it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Sure you don't care that they banned something you have no interest for, but the point is, wait till they ban something you DO like, and then you will hear a few (such as yourself) complain about it, but no one else sees a reason 'to care'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And they haven't really. Everything they have/haven't banned has made reasonable sense.
Honestly, if you want Forlorn, you can get upset for me as my proxy. You can write to my government and take it to the (my) man for me. I'm sure that will make you feel better about it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
If politicans can take away a basic freedom once, they can do it again.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They banned postal and postal 2 as well incidently long before this game. You can cry about those as well if you like.
They still let through basically EVERY other game that has been released (maybe the odd exception). Hell, we even let in games like GTA3 and BMX XXX (which was so bad it SHOULD of been banned, and I mean bad as in that game was utterly crap) that Australia banned.
Of course, you don't pay any attention to anything outside of your fantasy world, had you read my post and checked the dates, you'd see that they've generally been fair in their decisions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Indifference/Ignorance is one of the worst forms of evil, guess you didn't study the holocaust enough...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which explains why we have had basically every other game (uncensored) and only very few games banned EVER like phantasmagoria (I wonder if you're old enough to know what that game was). You don't live in New Zealand, you wouldn't have the first clue what happens in New Zealand, so don't be a friggin idiot.
Incidently, I've studied the Holocaust more than enough, and if you want to keep making these sort of ridiculously dumb comparisons then welcome to my ignore list.
MonsieurEvil
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Allowing any kind of censorship, no matter how seemingly unimportant or insignifigant, is the foot in the door to complete and total dictatorship.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They banned postal and postal 2 as well, oh and phantasmagoria. OMG THEY HAVE BEEN OPRESSING US FOR YEARS.
Honestly, nobody in New Zealand is overly upset (some are definitely disappointed) but when things have been banned here it is generally for reasonable reasons. This whole, OMG THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS!!!!!oneone is certainly a very weird foreign thing.
Honestly, I've read enough NZ based discussions on this banning to realise that you guys are getting MORE upset over it than we are. That is just really quite funny on so many levels <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Anyways. The point MonsE is trying to make is that since they've already done it, that battle is over, now it's just a matter of pushing the line further, and further if they want to.
If your quoting Thursday, I'd say its pretty obvious it was a joke. Unless he is making a habit of injecting unsubstantiated rumors into already heated debates for his own amusment.
Usually when people discuss I generally accept their facts as truth unless it's contradictory to something I know. I guess I'll have to stop being so trustworthy.
Usually when people discuss I generally accept their facts as truth unless it's contradictory to something I know. I guess I'll have to stop being so trustworthy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You really should. A proper debate, like a proper piece of nonfiction, demands good credible sources. I see red whenever people start pulling stats out of their butts in here, for example... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Poor Sirus, so naive... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
You shouldn't have to look anything up. They should have to provide the sources, and then you can render judgement based on the source's credibility, slant, information, etc. The burden of proof is on the prosecution in American law, and in Discussion forum law. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Anyhoo, back on topic. I still have not heard anyone make a convincing argument that Manhunt in NZ is more violent than Lord of the Rings in NZ - a beheading is a beheading, sucking chest wounds are sucking chest wounds, and the depiction of violence in a $300,000,000 CGI extravaganza is far more realistic than on your Geforce 3 at 16-bit. The fact that the kiwi's here don't seem to particularly care is why it didn't face any opposition when the ban went through. Brainwashed? Cultural difference? Lazy sod teens? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Inquiring Yankees want to know!
Btw Hübel, is it just me or do you always belittle when we talk about US government stamping on your constitution and now you're so worked up over NZ government banning a game <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->17.12.03
How the banning of Manhunt affects you
A classification of "objectionable" means that the game is banned in New Zealand because the Office determined that its availability was "likely to be injurious to the public good."
Every classification is tailored to remedy the injury that could be caused if a publication were to be made available to the public. The injury that the Office found Manhunt likely to cause could not be remedied by anything short of a ban. The legal consequences that flow from a ban reflect the gravity of the harm likely to be caused by the game's availability.
In this case, the Office decided that
the freedom of expression is outweighed by likelihood of injury to the public good that could result from this game's availability. The length of time it takes to complete the game, and the necessity to repeat the killings in ever more gory fashion on each level if one does not complete that level at first attempt, increases exposure to material that initially disturbs, but which must be accommodated, to complete the game. A player's power both to initiate violence and to control the level of violence is part of the process by which this accommodation is made. To succeed in this game, a player, regardless of age or maturity, must learn over an extended period of time to acquiesce in, tolerate, or even enjoy, the violence he or she inflicts.
One of the consequences of the ban is that it is now illegal to possess Manhunt in New Zealand. Anyone who possesses this game is liable to a fine of $2,000 (s131). Anyone who possesses Manhunt and exhibits or displays it to someone under the age of 18 is liable to imprisonment for one year or a fine of $20,000 (s127).
Anyone who supplies, distributes, exhibits, displays, supplies, possesses for the purpose of supply or advertises Manhunt, knowing that it is objectionable, could be imprisoned for up to a year or fined $20,000. Incorporated distributors and retailers could face a fine of $50,000 (s124).
A game classified as "objectionable" cannot be legally imported either. Objectionable publications, including Manhunt, are "prohibited imports" under the Customs and Excise Act 1996. The Customs Service has the power to seize all prohibited imports, regardless of how they arrive at the border. A person who buys Manhunt on an overseas trip and tries to bring it into New Zealand, and anyone who has ordered it from a website, risks not only having the game seized, but also 6 months in jail or a fine of $10,000 (s209 of the Customs and Excise Act).
Bans are not lightly entertained. When they are imposed, it is because the Office can see no other way of mitigating the risk of injury to the public good. In this case, the need to protect the greater public good from injury required the sacrifice of the right of individuals to entertain themselves with Manhunt's gameplay of sadistic and gory killings.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The best part is this line: <b>In this case, the need to protect the greater public good from injury required the sacrifice of the right of individuals to entertain themselves with Manhunt's gameplay of sadistic and gory killings</b>
I demand that they ban themselves from watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy, filmed in New Zealand, and packed full of gratuitous gory killings which are far more realistic in depiction than a video game could ever be. Hypocrite much?
Your thoughts, especially for the Kiwi posters - I know you're out there! Since when should any video game be banned? And what's different between this and a gory movie, gory book, gory greeting card, etc? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
/waves from the New Zealanders from Canada while playing [insert killographic game here]
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
*cough*
Really though, whaaack. They let LoTR film killographic fight scenes and then they rag on a game?
. . .
So i guess i can kill someone with a sword or bow but not with a gun? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
On that note, i wonder what would happen if NZ had seen Manhunt, except with swords, bows, and all that medieval-fantasy stuff. Would it still be banned because of the killographicness? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Trust me, if anything ever gets banned/attempted banned/almost banned/talked about banned around here, I light up the offending parties with a vengeance. Check my posting history regarding GTA, the Judges in St. Louis and Washington state, etc. How you missed my 2 dozen angry posts on the loss of US civil liberties, I'll never know. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> Use that search button, Lapplander!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->17.12.03
How the banning of Manhunt affects you
A classification of "objectionable" means that the game is banned in New Zealand because the Office determined that its availability was "likely to be injurious to the public good."
Every classification is tailored to remedy the injury that could be caused if a publication were to be made available to the public. The injury that the Office found Manhunt likely to cause could not be remedied by anything short of a ban. The legal consequences that flow from a ban reflect the gravity of the harm likely to be caused by the game's availability.
In this case, the Office decided that
the freedom of expression is outweighed by likelihood of injury to the public good that could result from this game's availability. The length of time it takes to complete the game, and the necessity to repeat the killings in ever more gory fashion on each level if one does not complete that level at first attempt, increases exposure to material that initially disturbs, but which must be accommodated, to complete the game. A player's power both to initiate violence and to control the level of violence is part of the process by which this accommodation is made. To succeed in this game, a player, regardless of age or maturity, must learn over an extended period of time to acquiesce in, tolerate, or even enjoy, the violence he or she inflicts.
One of the consequences of the ban is that it is now illegal to possess Manhunt in New Zealand. Anyone who possesses this game is liable to a fine of $2,000 (s131). Anyone who possesses Manhunt and exhibits or displays it to someone under the age of 18 is liable to imprisonment for one year or a fine of $20,000 (s127).
Anyone who supplies, distributes, exhibits, displays, supplies, possesses for the purpose of supply or advertises Manhunt, knowing that it is objectionable, could be imprisoned for up to a year or fined $20,000. Incorporated distributors and retailers could face a fine of $50,000 (s124).
A game classified as "objectionable" cannot be legally imported either. Objectionable publications, including Manhunt, are "prohibited imports" under the Customs and Excise Act 1996. The Customs Service has the power to seize all prohibited imports, regardless of how they arrive at the border. A person who buys Manhunt on an overseas trip and tries to bring it into New Zealand, and anyone who has ordered it from a website, risks not only having the game seized, but also 6 months in jail or a fine of $10,000 (s209 of the Customs and Excise Act).
Bans are not lightly entertained. When they are imposed, it is because the Office can see no other way of mitigating the risk of injury to the public good. In this case, the need to protect the greater public good from injury required the sacrifice of the right of individuals to entertain themselves with Manhunt's gameplay of sadistic and gory killings.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The best part is this line: <b>In this case, the need to protect the greater public good from injury required the sacrifice of the right of individuals to entertain themselves with Manhunt's gameplay of sadistic and gory killings</b>
I demand that they ban themselves from watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy, filmed in New Zealand, and packed full of gratuitous gory killings which are far more realistic in depiction than a video game could ever be. Hypocrite much?
Your thoughts, especially for the Kiwi posters - I know you're out there! Since when should any video game be banned? And what's different between this and a gory movie, gory book, gory greeting card, etc? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is hilarious. "Yeah, uh, we care about you so, were just gonna take away your right to be an individual...."